Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Art Market

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Peter Brooke: My first, very pleasant, duty is to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the serendipity under which we meet this morning to debate the British art market, in the context of the European Union, within 15 days of a critical Council meeting of EU Trade Ministers, with the seemingly innocuous, but potentially devastating, subject of droit de suite on the agenda.
Secondly, I must again declare my own unremunerated interest as president of the British Art Market Federation, a body created in the closing years of the previous Government, at the request of that Government, to provide a single conduit for the market to make representations to the three Departments that share umbrella responsibility for different aspects of the market's affairs. In alphabetical order, those Departments are the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Trade and Industry—appositely represented today by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, given that the Council of Ministers meets on 25 February—and Her Majesty's Treasury. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who initiated the British Art Market Federation, and to the way that Ministers have acted to date on behalf of the market. I include the Prime Minister in that tribute.
Thirdly, I thank parliamentary colleagues who are attending this earliest of events in the parliamentary day. I risk sounding like the dodo in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by saying that all have won and all shall have prizes, but I shall certainly embrace brevity in the hope that the maximum number of my colleagues can speak, and I hope that they will follow my example. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) for encouraging me to initiate this debate.
Although I risk playing the dodo, that charge cannot be laid against the British art market. The market's history goes back centuries, but its practices, services and scholarship are highly contemporary. Its integration with the continent is long and profound. If a flood of church art and church furniture left this country for the continent in the aftermath of the reformation, a similar tide returned during the neo-Gothic period of the first half of the previous century under the influence of the younger Pugin, who did so much to adorn this Palace.
If it is timely that we meet within 15 days of the Trade Council, it is also timely that we meet within 10 days of the 350th anniversary of the death of Charles I, whose martyrdom, in the eyes of some, makes him the putative patron saint of British art collecting—a practice that was reinforced by the grand tour of subsequent centuries. Continental artists and craftsmen have been as welcome here as they have been prevalent—from Rubens, Holbein, Van Dyck and Kokoschka to French carvers and Italian plasterers—and vice versa.
A peculiarly British contribution to the market is our genius, attributed to us by Bonaparte, as shopkeepers, which covers a multitude of skills and functions. The British Art Market Federation is made up of 15 different organisations and, if ours is a niche market, it is a larger niche than most: more than £2 billion is involved and it employs more than 50,000 people. The market can be read across into hotels, restaurants, other shops and theatres—many of which are concentrated in my constituency—as the magnets of our great art fairs bring foreigners from outside the European Union to London.
If that market leadership were a lonely issue, the preoccupation of the European Commission with level playing fields might be more tolerable. What is ultimately anti-European about the Commission's interest in the market is that the practical consequence will primarily be not to transfer business to the continent, but to move it inexorably from the European Union to the rival markets of Switzerland and the United States. Last week, elsewhere in this Palace, during the Standing Committee proceedings on the Greater London Authority Bill, I tabled an amendment stating that the mayor of London should pay due heed to London's global competitiveness. In the context of today's debate, a similar duty should notionally be laid on the Commission: to pay due need to the European Union's global competitiveness.
The great Bagehot remarked that in 1802 every hereditary monarch in the world was insane. In this year of grace, I do not want to lay such a charge against the entire Commission, but there is a manic quality to its thinking on the subject of our debate. Europe's economic welfare is not so well founded that we can afford to behave like Gadarene lemmings and cheerfully expel our traditional businesses to Geneva and New York. Why do I say that? Because, in a world of narrow margins, arbitrary transaction costs are slow poison to the competitiveness of even the healthiest of industries. The market here is threatened, first, by the charge of droit de suite—the imposition of an extra cost whenever a work of art changes hands up to 70 years after its creator's death. Colleagues will dissect the absurdities, contradictions and excesses of that apparently virtuous principle. It is threatened, secondly, by a doubling of value added tax in this country on works of art imported into the European Union.
My principal charge against the Commission is its unwillingness to face the reality that those moves will not enlarge the EU market; they will simply export trade and jobs to competitors beside Lac Léman and the Hudson river, who could be forgiven for scarcely believing their good fortune. The Commission has an obligation to us all to explain why that analysis is wrong. Its inadequate economic justification for the droit de suite proposal two years ago was subject to acute criticism, which in any intellectually rigorous climate called for a rejoinder,


but answer came there none. The analogous request from Her Majesty's Government for an impact study has been similarly disregarded.
The Commission was due to publish a review of the effects of VAT by the end of last year. There are rumours that it will dismiss the risks, but six weeks into the new year it has not been published. That might be charitably attributed to embarrassment about its intellectual rigour, too.
The great artist, Max Ernst, told the story of how his father had painted their garden omitting a tree for reasons of composition, but had then been so troubled by what he had done that he had gone out and cut down the tree. That story has two morals in today's context: first, that we are in danger of needlessly cutting down one of the great trees in the European forest; and, secondly, that the event is not being attended by the intellectual rigour that Max Ernst's father displayed.
One rejoinder that the Commission might make is that the percentages are small and their effect is being exaggerated. By the same lucky chance that is giving us this debate, last Saturday our television screens showed a film of that European cockpit, Yugoslavia, during the last war. A black American soldier complains to Edward Fox that his high explosives seem to have had no visible effect on the dam that they seek to blow up. Edward Fox languidly replies that he must not be in a hurry—the dam is very large and the high explosives very small; the high explosives will create a wound through which nature will then do its work. Just such a sequence of events threatens the British art market, and thus the European art market as well. Initially, the effect may seem small, but the nature and essence of markets will ensure that, in the fulness of time, the imbalance of costs will transfer advantage massively outside the European Union.
The percentages may seem small, but they deter trade. In a world where 70 per cent. of the droit de suite paid in France in 1996 went to the six or seven impressionist families, a small percentage of a large sum would still be massive.
What are we asking of those on the Treasury Bench? My right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary, whose pamphlet last year did much to illuminate the issue, will spell out the official Opposition's view. My plea, which is understandably on behalf of the British Art Market Federation, is for time. Time in the EU means derogations—a derogation of decent length in connection with droit de suite, if that directive is to come, and an extended derogation for VAT. I ask for time because, in the recent past, time has not been used by the Commission, to use my metaphor of the dam, to test the dam to see how genuinely secure it is against the flood waters moving out of the EU, as the ecclesiastical furniture moved out of this country in another period of seismic European development after the Reformation.
I close on a personal note. I have lived thrice on the continent: twice within the European Union and once outside. I have no little sympathy for the European ideal, but it troubles me when I see us collectively acting contrary to Europe's best interests in creating an unnecessary level playing field, as in the garden of the Ernst family. Composition has much to recommend it, but global competition is ultimately all. However, my views

are as nothing compared to the frustration and sadness of the natural internationalists who make up the art market in this country.
A moment ago, I mentioned Yugoslavia. One of the taproots of our European culture is the Homeric saga of the Trojan war, excavated by a great German scholar. Contemporary scholarship says that that war was about competition for trade routes rather than possession of a great beauty. It would be sad today if we were to lose not only the trade routes but the beauty.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: That eloquent and elegant introduction by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) encapsulated the problem. It now behoves me to be succinct.
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, one of the shortcomings of these one-hour-and-25 minute debates is that Ministers are rarely given an adequate time to reply. The Minister in this debate has a great deal in the opening speech to which to reply.

Madam Speaker: Order. I regard these debates as a priority for Back Benchers.

Mr. Dalyell: Exactly, but Back Benchers deserve a reply to their questions; thus my speech will be in the form of questions.
The issue of droit de suite—part of the copyright law in several other EC states, which entitles artists or their heirs to receive a payment whenever an original work of theirs is resold while those works are in copyright—presents problems. What discussions have taken place with our European partners about their copyright laws? This issue is crucial to VAT harmonisation, which is partly at the root of the problem.
My second question concerns resale rights. The Government have described how, during our presidency, the UK was able to call for other member states to make cost-benefit analyses, and for the Council working group under future presidencies to study those. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), said:
even the Commission has accepted that royalty rates need to be looked at carefully.
In December, the then Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), spoke to the French Minister of Culture, Mrs. Trautmann, who said that France had not made a study of the resale right but would ask the Commission to make one. What has happened about that?
My third question concerns an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs:
The draft Directive on artists' resale rights is expected to be on the agenda for the Internal Market Council on 25 February. While a large majority of member states, unlike the United Kingdom, support the principle of harmonisation in this area, it is not yet clear whether it will be ready for agreement by then. The Government are continuing to make clear their opposition to this measure, and are working to try to minimise the damage it would do to the competitiveness of the UK's international art market."—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 51.]
That raises the question of the 2.5 per cent. and the 5 per cent. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, 50,000 people are involved—the


art industry is bigger than the music industry. The many related services, not only in London but in other centres such as Edinburgh, include picture restorers, framers, conservation specialists, shippers, insurers and exhibition organisers. Many substantial jobs are at stake, and the multiplier effect goes—I shall not say across the economy, as that would be to over-egg the pudding—very widely.
My fourth question concerns VAT and paperwork. May I ask a heretical question? Is it desirable for Europe to have VAT on works of art at all? The sum of it is that we lose out to Switzerland, and certainly to the United States. Is not import tax inappropriate? European Governments might get more into their treasuries out of returns from a healthy art market than they do by messing around with import tax.
My final question is on a slightly different issue. It concerns fraud and theft in the art market, which is a growing problem, especially in relation to bespoken theft. There are now specialists who do feasibility studies on action in transport getaways, break-ins, decoys, and all the other elements of highly professional art theft. I know that the Art Loss Register and James Emson do extremely good work. What is the police strength? Can my hon. Friend the Minister get figures from the Home Office on the seriousness of purpose of the police in this matter? I understand that art police resources have improved greatly in the past few years, but a decade ago they were deeply unsatisfactory.
As an example of the professionalism of art thieves, I point out that, at the time of the recent attempted theft at Belton house, if the police vehicle had gone at full speed down a particular lane, the police would almost certainly have sustained fatal casualties. Such are the lengths to which the perpetrators of the planned seizures of treasures go, and there is a huge amount of money in it for them. Are the police serious about counteracting these crimes? This is not an absolute police priority—that would be silly—but can the Minister tell us what is being done about this problem?
What about the artefacts that are coming in from eastern Europe? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) used to lead the all-party arts and heritage group. I vividly remember visiting churches in Czechoslovakia, some of which were locked and others from which many artefacts had been stolen for the Amsterdam, Frankfurt or London art markets. The icons from eastern Europe—not least from the former Soviet Union—flooded out from the places in which they belonged. That is a serious matter for anyone who is concerned about the European heritage. Can anything be done about that? That may be easier said than done, but it is a real problem.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I have little to add to the eloquent plea made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). The debate is timely, because the decisions of the Commission are imminent. The case that the right hon. Gentleman deployed was opened most forcefully last year by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who I think will contribute to the debate later. We are grateful to him for focusing on this threat to a major British trading activity.
Is the Minister aware that these impending measures have already substantially transferred business from this country to the United States and Switzerland in anticipation of the almost inevitable—as it is perceived by the art market—development of the tax regime, especially the ending of the derogation from the sixth directive at the end of June this year, which will increase the VAT on imports from 2.5 to 5 per cent? It is my understanding that that measure can be reversed only if there is a unanimous decision of the Council to that effect, and such a unanimous decision is thought unlikely.
It is important that the arguments against the ending of the derogation—I add my voice to that of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in seeking prolongation—are carefully rehearsed, and that the case that may be argued by the Commission is answered point by point. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, its case is intellectually unsound, it should be answered by a strong rebuttal from Her Majesty's Government.
I am aware of some of the arguments by Directorate-General XV about the impact of the droit de suite proposals, but I have not yet been able to elicit from the Commission the arguments that it is deploying about the impact of value added tax. It is perverse of the Commission to proceed with this proposal in the mistaken belief that it is in the interests of the European Union to have common rates of tax on important works of art when the sole consequence, as the right hon. Gentleman properly explained, will be to damage European trade for the benefit only of those trading outwith the continent.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal will damage European trade, but is it not also true that it will damage British trade more than that of any other European country?

Mr. Maclennan: That argument will undoubtedly appeal to Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Steen: But is it correct?

Mr. Maclennan: I believe that it is correct. However, as we must persuade 14 other Ministers of the virtues of our argument, it may be best to couch it in European terms. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment, however.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is not the real kernel of the argument that, although Britain will suffer the most, the European Union will also suffer? The 5,000 jobs that will be lost in Britain will not be redistributed to Europe: they will go to auction houses outside Europe, notably in Switzerland and the United States.

Mr. Maclennan: That is exactly the point; it has already been made, so I do not wish to labour it.
Will the Minister use his influence to prevail on the European Union and the Commission to make their case transparent, for there is still time? If the arguments are to carry any weight—the matter should not be decided merely on the basis of Britain's interests alone—the Commission's view should be published. We have not yet had the conclusions of the inquiry. I understand that the inquiry is being led not by Directorate-General XV,


which has some responsibility for the art world, but by Directorate-General XXI, which may have less direct understanding of these matters.
The harmonisation of droit de suite is a peculiarly perverse proposal. There is little evidence that droit de suite has been of great benefit to young artists, for whose assistance it was primarily devised, in the countries in which it operates—I am thinking particularly of France and Denmark. Indeed, young artists in this country have little expectation of deriving benefit from the proposal. They have expressed to a number of us the view that the complexities of seeking to raise and police such an operation are not worth the candle. Although it may benefit a handful of our most distinguished artists whose works command a high price in the secondary market, such as Mr. Lucian Freud, it will not give a great leg-up to young artists who are trying to make a living and establish a reputation, and for whom secondary market values are probably low.

Mr. John Townend: As a spokesman for probably the most Europhile party in the House of Commons, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is appalling that a British industry of this size should be destroyed or, at best, severely undermined, and there is nothing we can do about it? Have we not transferred too much sovereignty, if we are putting people's jobs and industry at such risk?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not see the necessity for that intervention. The thrust of my remarks is criticism of what is proposed, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman's added emphasis would be more appropriately deployed in his own speech.
I am wholly opposed to this development. I do not think that the droit de suite is a practical or sensible way to try to assist young artists, or that the House need trouble itself with those who are already well established. The scheme has been relatively ineffective in the countries where it already operates; it has been hard to police, and I understand that a number of the companies involved have gone bankrupt. I think that the European Union is foolish to try to translate the scheme from one or two countries to all EU countries. This is not a suitable area for harmonisation, and the proposal should be resisted for that reason.

Sir Peter Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing the debate, and on making his case so thoroughly, wittily and cogently. I would like to say that his speech was also timely, but I fear that the die is cast—although I hope it is not. We shall soon see.
The British art market is of world significance, second only to that of New York. It gives employment to upwards of 40,000 people, in supporting professions and skills. My right hon. Friend's speech showed what disaster the ending of the derogation, the doubling of value added tax to 5 per cent. and the imposition of the droit de suite will bring in their train. We know that those developments will be disastrous. When VAT was first imposed at 2.5 per

cent. in 1994, business from non-EU countries fell sharply. It is not that 5 per cent. is high as such things go; but the international art business can easily migrate to where the tax regime is favourable. Why should anyone continue to buy, sell and auction in London when it can be done far less expensively and with much less red tape in New York or Zurich?
If the business lost to the United Kingdom were, as a result, distributed more evenly around the EU, there would be some logic in the EU's plans, but the rest of the EU will gain nothing—except, perhaps, a little more VAT, at the expense of jobs and the income tax that those jobs provide in the UK. The planned levy—the droit de suite—on modern art sales, to enable the artist or, in most cases, the artist's heirs to benefit from the artist's continuing popularity and every successive sale of his work, will have a similar effect, driving business out of London and out of the EU. Switzerland and the United States have no such levy, and buyers will go where they do not have to pay it.
If the levy really did help and encourage struggling artists, there would be some sense in it, but in France—where, as my right hon. Friend observed, there has long been such a levy—the money goes largely to the estates of rich and successful artists after they are dead. It is of little assistance to struggling artists with no early resale expectation, whose resale potential, such as it is, will no doubt be discounted in the prices that they are currently obtaining. It will generally be of use to them only after they have become rich and successful—by which time they will probably have died.
If those two measures are implemented, they will make nonsense of the argument that the EU's central mission is to achieve a world-competitive European economy. They will destroy London, which has already been damaged by the original imposition of VAT in 1994, as an internationally competitive art market.

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend has spoken of the vital importance of the industry to the United Kingdom, and the damage that could be done to it. The Luxembourg convention, which exists for qualified majority voting procedures, is designed to protect countries' vital national interests. Should it be invoked in this instance? Should Britain make the point that the industry is a vital national interest, and ask the EU to drop the qualified majority voting approach? France did that twice while I was a Minister.

Sir Peter Lloyd: The industry is certainly a vital national interest, and one that is particular to this country, although it benefits the whole of Europe. It is this country that receives the trade that benefits the rest of the European Community. I shall say more about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more than we already know.
The European Union presents itself as wholly respectful of, and encouraging to, the special character and skills of member countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) implied as much in his intervention. It is extraordinary that, in this case, the EU appears to be intent on annihilating a particularly successful aspect of British cultural and commercial life for the sake of the hobgoblin of bureaucratic consistency. It seems that the European Commission may again be


teaching us the lesson that, in the EU, a derogation—however justified in common sense—is seldom a final victory for common sense. All too often, it is a defeat for common sense temporarily postponed.
I understand that the Commission was going to review the issue thoroughly by the end of last year, but that has not happened. Certainly, no review has been published. I hope that the Minister will tell us that a review is on its way. I hope that he will be able to convince the House that I am too pessimistic, and possibly too cynical, and that the Commission is thinking again, and will come up with constructive proposals that enable the London art market to survive and flourish. Failing that, if the Commission has not yet seen the light, I hope that the Government have at least brought together a blocking minority of fellow member countries that have seen the light, or that they are considering invoking the Luxembourg compromise.
If the Government are serious about protecting British interests in Europe—as they say they are—and, in this instance, protecting the overall long-term interests of Europe, they will already be taking such action. I am sure that the Minister will want to let us know what is happening.

Mr. Steen: Might not the Government also consider asking the Commission to pursue the fiche d'impact? I believe that European law obliges the Commission to pursue it in the case of all directives or rules and regulations that have an impact on European countries. It has to conduct a study to show the effect that a directive, or rules and regulations, would have on employment or trade in all European nations. Should the Government try to persuade the Commission that it should not proceed with this arrangement until it has carried out a fiche d'impact? I believe that, if the Government have not done so, they should.

Sir Peter Lloyd: There are a number of things that the Government could do. I am happy to serve as the vehicle for my hon. Friend's question to the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister's answer.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My first objective is to strengthen the Minister's determination to fight this case. Secondly, I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on his eloquent and effective speech, in which, as ever, he deployed all his skills. Not only is he, like me, a former Secretary of State for what used to be National Heritage; he is a former Treasury Minister, and a former Whip. His skill in that last regard can be seen from the fact that he has been able to produce so many hon. Members for today's debate. Thirdly, I intend to make the shortest of this morning's speeches.
When I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, I was inevitably overwhelmed by people who were looking for cash handouts. Supporting arts, sport and heritage is part of the Government's responsibility—the national lottery makes it easier—but it is also to create a climate in which successful cultural industries can flourish.
The British art market is one such formidably successful industry. It is not looking for cash handouts,

but it needs a regulatory system that respects its independence and effectiveness. Above all, it needs Ministers who will fight its cause. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury during my time in office, who were part of that determined campaign.
As has been said, we face an extremely serious position. The industry is not only an enormous cultural asset, but a great commercial contributor—it provides up to 50,000 jobs. Many businesses are involved—not just the great four of Sotheby's, Bonham, Phillips and Christie's, but many other smaller and expert industries, restorers, valuers, dealers and galleries, which in themselves feed further into the tourism industry, which has become so important.
Two issues have no logic or sense. It has been made clear that the imposition of the 5 per cent. VAT on imports would simply benefit New York, Switzerland or the far east. The droit de suite would bring precious little benefit to young artists, and there are many other ways to assist them.
At a time when there is growing hostility to the idea of a Europe led by ideology, it is enormously important for the Government to act now on the basis of the evidence and of pragmatism to safeguard an industry that is vital to Britain and to our people.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I support the condemnation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of the Commission's proposals. I do so with some sympathy for the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. I was his predecessor in the previous Government and dealt with these matters. It is appropriate that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is on the Front Bench, because the issue stems from the whole genus of measures that come under copyright.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). The industries that are covered by copyright, and for which it is important that intellectual property is protected, are among those that do most to benefit the British economy. They include the music industry—the commercial aspects of which I was also responsible for—publishing and many others. They are at the heart of what we have been proud to achieve in European and world markets. We send an important message to the public in not overlooking the contribution that those industries have made to our commercial as well as cultural life.
When I was upstairs in a Standing Committee at the beginning of 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster also made a forceful presentation of the case for the British art market. There is no doubt in these circumstances that the Commission has made a monumental error. I rapidly say that I happen to be one of those Conservatives who is a Europhile, and that the Commission is important for us to carry out our objectives within the single European market. As a general point of principle, without the Commission,


we would not have made tremendous progress in the European Union in breaking down trade and non-tariff barriers.

Mr. Dalyell: As a fellow Europhile, may I ask the hon. Gentleman a matter of fact? When he was dealing in a ministerial capacity with Commissioner Monti, what did commissioners say in defence of the droit de suite?

Mr. Taylor: Commissioners said a great deal. Commissioner Monti and the Internal Market Council had many discussions on those matters, none of which was convincing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, their undertakings to come forward with further evidence and documentation did not materialise, certainly not while I was a Minister.
As someone who is not, in principle, against the Commission, I hope that the House will bear with me when I say that the Commission is not always infallible. On this occasion, it has been fallible. It has made a mistake about harmonisation of a sector where the damage will be to the European Union as a whole, and specifically to one member country—the UK.
There seems to be an argument for looking at taxation across the European Union and for saying that there are cases where harmonisation will improve the competitiveness of the European Union, but proposals should not be made to try to create harmonisation if they damage one country and do not benefit others in the European Union itself. That is a more communautaire view than that being expressed by Commissioner Monti.
I want to assist the Minister in the deliberations in which he will be involved in the next few days. Does he know from the legal advice that he is receiving whether the proposal has been made under the right article—100A? I was nervous of attempting to label it a taxation measure because I feared that that may not count in our interest in the long term, but I would nevertheless be interested in what the Minister has to say.
Has the Commission attempted to show that those countries that have not applied the artist resale right have done that because it does not work in favour of those whom they most hope to benefit—the struggling artists—and tends, as has already been said, to apply only to the estates of dead artists who have been extremely successful? Has the Commission examined the way in which the art market will move off shore, either to Geneva or to New York, as it undoubtedly will? It will probably not move to California because it has a levy; there is an internal distortion in the United States market. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the United States, not an argument that the Commission can use. That is why I raise it; I know that the Commission has used it.
Those are serious questions. I am not sure that the Commission has done its homework since the days when I was attempting to put pressure on it. The matter is too important for the art market in the UK, all the jobs that it provides, the prospects for the art world and Britain's role in the world.
I hope that the Minister can give more up-to-date information than was available to me when I left office. I hope that he will use every endeavour to put across that

we make not an anti-European criticism, but a criticism of the way in which the Commission is applying certain principles. We must stand up against its making that mistake. If it makes it, the Commission will damage its credibility on a much wider basis.

Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), whom I congratulate on securing the debate on such an extraordinarily important issue. It is also a great honour to follow so many other distinguished and eloquent right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches and hon. Members across the Floor. I am particularly grateful to them for their concise, brief contributions, because that allows less distinguished Back Benchers to get a word in edgeways, which, as Madam Speaker made clear earlier, is the purpose of such debates.
The debate is broader than simply the issue of art. It is about the way in which we tend to talk about many difficult and different political issues. In the world and in the Chamber, we tend increasingly to use single, often meaningless, words to try to encapsulate the things that we are getting at.
For example, the word "modernisation" is uttered in the Chamber more often than any other word. It is, of course, entirely meaningless. All Governments modernise everything. "Equalisation" is another oft repeated word. It seems to be presumed that equalisation is necessarily a good thing, but it may mean making things worse—equalising down. Integration may mean forcing together into one place things which should be different. Harmonisation is perhaps the greatest of those meaningless mantras that Europhile friends tend to use so much. They suggest that harmonisation is necessarily a good thing, but today's topic amply demonstrates that it is not and that the Government should stand up for British, not European interests. We have a strong art market which is the envy of the world and the mantra of harmonisation could lead to its destruction.
Either of the tax proposals before the Commission would damage the art market, but together they could destroy it. In that context, and given that there has been no economic analysis of their effects, it is quite extraordinary that the proposals got off the starting block. They provide a bizarre window into the workings of the European Commission, which produces politically correct, wonderful sounding ideas, for example, that tax harmonisation will help young artists. They all look marvellous on paper, but the costs have not been considered. What progress has the Minister made on asking the Commission to look into precisely what the proposals would mean for the British art market?
Once again, Britain seems to be at the receiving end of the rawest deal from the European Union. We are expected to sit back and say, "This is all fine. Harmonisation is marvellous. It is the European Union at its best. Okay, chaps. Crack on. Qualified majority voting is fine. We'll lie down and take it." Perhaps this should be the issue on which the Government should say, "No. Hang on a minute", as Baroness Thatcher, with her handbag, did so memorably on the subject of the rebate. We ought to take a stand. It may be a small issue, but it may be the one on which the Government should stand up and say, "Enough is enough. We intend to go no further."
All our European partners—I am not sure that I like the word partners—have so much to gain, but we have so much to lose as the proposals would do down the London art market. Unlike us, they do not care what happens to the international art market because they play just a small part in it. Our art market is unique in Europe and we should stand up for it.
If the Government are looking for a cause to demonstrate their clout in Europe, about which they brag so often, what about this one? Perhaps they should stand up and say, "Okay, Europe. We are going to make you listen and do something about this iniquitous tax." Both proposals are entirely indefensible and would damage an immensely successful and internationally renowned British industry.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend used the word "tax". Is he absolutely certain that it is a tax and involves the Exchequer, or is it a levy? Precision is quite important when the Minister has to raise the matter at the Internal Market Council.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is quite right. I used the word loosely. I was referring to VAT derogation, which is a tax. However, the provision which I tend to refer to as "droit de seigneur", although that that is not quite the right expression, is a levy rather than a tax. I apologise to my hon. Friend, who is quite right.
In the circumstances, the Minister's response in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was unsatisfactory. He said:
The Government … are working to try to minimise the damage it would do to the competitiveness of the UK's international art market."—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 51.]
The Minister referred to minimising the damage, not stopping it. He did not say that Britain would not agree to the proposals, but appeared to accept that they would be introduced and was looking for ways to minimise their damage. If the Minister intends to do something to stop the iniquitous proposals from Europe, his answer to my right hon. Friend was weak and he should correct it.
At the Internal Market Council on 25 February, I hope that the Government will make it clear that we shall have none of it and that through our high-level contacts we shall seek enough allies in Europe to stop the proposals. I understand that the Italians may be considering voting with us. Perhaps the well-known hotline between No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic could be used usefully on this occasion, not to help Mr. Murdoch but to help the London art market.
I call on the Government not just to pay lip service to the marvellous mantras of which they are so beloved, but to help one of our key British industries—the British art market—and to do something on 25 February that will not necessarily help Europe, but will help Britain.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing today's debate. My interest in this issue goes back to when I was briefly special adviser to the Minister for the Arts in the mid-1980s, but it was revived in the autumn when I found myself in a fourball, playing golf with the finance director

of one of the major auction houses. He told me in a very matter-of-fact tone of his plans for the auction house to move abroad, with most of its business going to New York and some to Geneva, if the EC proposals were implemented. So he already had contingency plans well in hand. Of course, auction houses want to move outside any zone where European regulation may be imposed on them as a result of the droit de suite.
We have all heard the arguments and almost everyone agrees with them. Clearly, VAT at 5 per cent. will drive away business. VAT also causes enormous administrative hassle. The droit de suite will not have the effects intended for it. It does not benefit artists, but their children or grandchildren as it lowers prices in the primary art market. Like VAT, it also drives business abroad and was rejected as an approach by the Whitford report on copyright on the grounds that it would be unenforceable as some of the art market would go underground and the rest would go abroad. Today, we all agree that droit de suite would be a disaster.
A major task rests with the Government to provide as much information as possible by answering many of the questions that have been raised today. That would enhance the force of the arguments that Britain could make against those measures.
Let me summarise some of the questions that the Government should try to answer. On VAT, what estimate have the Government made of the encouragement of the repatriation of our cultural heritage that resulted from the absence of VAT prior to 1994, and the imposition of the seventh VAT directive? A similar question for the Government is their estimate of the contribution that 2.5 per cent. VAT is now making to the decline in imports since 1994. What is their estimate of the effects that raising VAT to 5 per cent. would have on art imports? Will the Government press the European Commission to publish its promised study on the effects of VAT on art imports? I understand that it was promised by the end of 1998, but it is still not forthcoming. Will the Government try to negotiate an extension of the derogation to keep VAT at 2.5 per cent. at least until the Commission has published its report and its conclusions are digested?
Can the Government confirm that they are still convinced of the harmful effects of droit de suite and its perverse and damaging effects on artists and the art market? Will they carry out a short study on those issues and publish their findings so that there can be complete clarity as to where they stand? Is there any scope for challenging the fact that droit de suite is being brought forward as a trade measure by the European Commission and is therefore subject to qualified majority voting, when logically, as has been pointed out by several hon. Members, it should be treated as a tax measure? Will the Government undertake to make further representations that it should be covered by the unanimity principle? If that is not possible—and perhaps it is not—what efforts are the Government making to try to secure a deal with another major European country in order to secure a blocking minority under qualified majority voting? The Dutch are already allies. Probably there are one or two other allies around—the Irish perhaps. One more major country as an ally would secure a blocking minority.
If we fail in that action, have the Government considered—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davies) asked a moment


ago—whether there is any scope for using a Luxembourg compromise? What are the Government's views on the scope for use of a Luxembourg compromise in this case?
I believe that getting the facts into the open as much as possible will do most of the work for all of us in securing, or impressing, Britain's case on the Commission. If our case does not prevail, the losers will be clear—in lost jobs and tax revenue, and the loss of a centre of excellence, which will go abroad.
When I was on the golf course, I was struck by how relaxed the finance director of the major auction house was. Of course he was relaxed: he has his plans to go abroad well in hand. He does not really want to live abroad, but he will do so if necessary. Senior members of auction houses will go abroad. Although thousands of jobs will be lost, those right at the top will not lose theirs. People at the top of auction houses would rather stay in London—as moving would entail an economic cost in upheaval and a risk of losing business—but they are not the ones who will be hit hardest. The people who will be hit hardest are the people of Britain, who will lose jobs and a centre of excellence.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have been asked to speak in this debate, and shall make a very short speech. However, before I launch into the debate, I should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on securing this debate, which is timely.
The more one looks into the matter, the more nonsensical it becomes. As from 1 July, the seventh VAT directive will come into operation; tax on imported art from countries outside the European Union will be increased from 2.5 to 5 per cent.; and the derogation agreed on 13 December 1993 will end. Therefore, time is running out on the matter.
I ask the Minister what representations he has made to the Commission; whether a fiche d'impact has been prepared; and whether an impact assessment—which, under the terms of the seventh directive, was supposed to be completed by the end of 1998—has yet been received by the Government? If the Government have not yet received an impact assessment, we should ask the Commission for more time to implement the derogation. I hope that the Minister will be able to refer to that when he replies to the debate.
The British art market is worth £2.2 billion, is larger than the entire music industry market and provides about 50,000 jobs. The two proposals will put at risk a minimum of 5,000 jobs. Britain would lose those jobs essentially because we have the second most important art market in the world. It would be one thing—in a communautaire sense—if those jobs were to be redistributed across other parts of the European Union, but that will not happen. They will simply be lost to Switzerland, New York, Hong Kong and other art centres. The seventh directive therefore seems to be based on pretty thin ice.
We are considering also the droit de suite, which is a French term. I rather prefer the term "artists' resale right", which seems to have a more English ring to it. If we are to have an English tax, let us have an English, not French name for it.
It would be a different matter also if the tax were to benefit the general art market, but it will not. It will benefit comparatively few young artists' families, who could benefit in other ways. The problem with the droit de suite is that it has very high compliance costs, which alone are estimated to involve an income loss of £68 million.
Implementation of the VAT seventh directive to increase, from 1 July, VAT on imported art to 5 per cent., and the introduction of the artists' resale tax, will have a very damaging affect on the British market. I should therefore like to spur the Minister—in a cross-party and common-sense spirit—to ask the Commission again to re-examine the matter. After all, just before the 1997 general election, Commissioner Monti wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and said that he would very carefully examine the assessment of the measures' impact on Britain. He should live up to his words.
The Minister, the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues have already raised the issue with several fellow countries to determine whether a blocking minority might be obtained to ensure that the derogation is continued. I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to use every possible effort to discover whether we cannot find some common cause on the changes, and to ensure that their most damaging aspects are not implemented.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On behalf of the House, I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for securing this debate, and for introducing it with his customary erudition and wit. He spoke not only for his own constituency—although he does represent perhaps the greatest concentration of dealers and auction houses in the world—but for the wider art market, which, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) reminded us, extends way north of the border. We are speaking today not only for the great names in the art market but for the associated industries and the network of dealers and galleries across the United Kingdom, which employ upwards of 50,000.
A great British success story faces a serious and immediate threat not from any failing in its own endeavours—it is still the greatest and most competitive art market, certainly in Europe and possibly in the world—but externally, from two imposed taxes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster has succeeded in his debate in uniting the entire House behind his cause. That is never an easy thing to do, but it has been done today. We have heard powerful and well-argued speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing every sector of opinion in the Chamber.
As we have heard, the threat we face comes from two directions. The first threat is the proposed doubling, from June 1999, of VAT on imported art. I repeat a question that other hon. Members have asked the Minister: where is the European Commission study that is required by treaty law before the change is made?
We know that, even with a VAT increase of 2.5 per cent., damage has already been done. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said correctly that anticipation of the higher rate and of the droit de suite is already doing damage to the London and United Kingdom art market.
The second threat is the proposed resale levy, or droit de suite, that will be charged on the resale of works of art by any living artist or for 70 years after the artist's death. I believe that that is a fiscal measure—a tax—and should not have been introduced as a trade measure. Whatever it is called, its effects are clear: objects for sale will simply be transferred from the United Kingdom and out of the European Union. The levy savings realised by removing valuable objects for sale to New York will be greater than any possible freight costs or associated transfer charges.
The proposal encompasses not only paintings, but sculpture, manuscripts, tapestries and even photographs. The artist will receive nothing from the proposal. Either sales will be driven underground, by private treaty between individuals, or objects and paintings of any value will be transferred out of the European Union entirely. The proposal is crazy, defies common sense and will not help the European Union in any way. The beneficiaries will be dealers in New York, Geneva, Tokyo and every other part of the world.
The proposal is baffling. Dealers in New York are rubbing their eyes in disbelief at the Marshall aid in reverse. The European Union is proposing a measure that will quite certainly and deliberately transfer business, profit and employment from the European Union to north America. That is being done by the European Commission—supposedly the guardian of European interests. The Commission says that London has an unfair advantage by not having the droit de suite, and that sales are transferred from Germany and France to London. By exactly the same logic, if London has the levy forced on it, sales will be transferred out of the European Union altogether. The Commission is condemned according to its own logic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)—who comes to these matters with a sympathetic point of view—realises that the Commission has got it badly wrong. Of course, it is not the Commission or the staff in Brussels who will suffer—it is the London art market. It will not be the owners of the auction houses who suffer. The Commission has said, dismissively, that the entire campaign has been got up by Sotheby's, Christies and the big auction houses. They will not suffer—they already have salerooms in New York, and more auctions will be transferred there.
Those who will suffer will be the office staff, the experts, the packers, the porters and the associated industries—the framers, the restorers, the printers of documents and the little galleries associated with those businesses. They cannot move, and they will suffer. The Commission has a harmonising agenda. It does not have in mind the national concerns of member states.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way. I am trying to answer some points made in the debate. We only have a few minutes, and we want to hear from the Minister also.
It is to the member states that we ought to turn to defend national interests. That brings to the fore another baffling aspect of this whole affair. Why is the German presidency bringing forward the measure? Is it stupidity? Does Germany not realise the damage that will be done

to employment and the interests of the European Union? I do not think so. The matter has been exhaustively discussed in working parties in Brussels, and I know from previous debates that the Government are fully engaged in the matter.
To be fair, I was impressed by a debate that we had last July when the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), showed a thorough grasp of the issue and acknowledged that great damage would be done. He estimated that if the measure went ahead, we could lose earnings of up to £65 million a year, resulting in 5,000 job losses. He pledged to fight the measures. I am grateful for the way in which the Government have become engaged in the matter. It has been explained to the Council of Ministers exactly what is at stake, and there are many academic studies to back up our view.
I do not want to be misunderstood in what I am about to say. I admire modern Germany, and I am very slow to question the motives of either the European Commission or other member states. However, as they are proceeding in full knowledge of the damage that will be caused—which has been backed up by countless studies and many debates—I must conclude that this is a calculated attempt to damage an important British industry. If that is not the case, let us have an explanation. There may be resentment or jealousy that the British art market, centred in London, is somehow not fully European and perhaps gets its trade from a global market—perhaps too much from north America. That is the only explanation.
If that is true, the Council of Ministers, in two weeks' time, will be engaging in an act of quite unnecessary industrial vandalism. For the German Government to bring forward this measure under their presidency is curious. We know that the German Government were elected on a pledge to reduce German unemployment by 1 million. Sadly, that has not happened—German unemployment has risen to 4.5 million. The measure will not create jobs in Germany, but it will destroy them elsewhere in the EU. How can an organisation and a member state be proceeding with a measure that will cost European jobs, as has been proved in this short debate?
The matter is extremely urgent. The Internal Market Council meets on 25 February. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, now is the time to take a stand. The day after that Council meeting, the Council of Ministers meets in the form of a European Council, when all heads of state and all Prime Ministers will meet to discuss the European budget. Let the Prime Minister of this country use this as an example of the European Union damaging itself by allowing the ideology of tax harmonisation to overcome common sense and the commercial interests of member states.
I ask the Minister to request formally the Internal Market Council to postpone by one day its deliberations so that the matter can be raised at that higher forum. I believe that this matter should be the subject of a Luxembourg compromise. As the House knows, this is a mechanism whereby a measure brought forward under majority voting can nevertheless be subject to a national veto where important national interests are at stake. The mechanism has been invoked by other countries, including France. It should be invoked in this case.
The Prime Minister has said that he has influence in Europe. Let us see—let us use this as a test case of that influence. Let him prove it. The House is in no doubt


that this is an important national asset. The threat is real, immediate and serious and we want something done about it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on bringing this important matter to the House once again? Let me say at the outset that I have not heard a single word with which I disagree.
The point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is very important. I would like to think that the decision is not motivated by malice or jealousy on the Germans' part—I would hate to think that that is the real reason. I suspect that it has something to do with a matter that has not been raised this morning—the belief among Members of the European Parliament that this sounds like a good thing.
MEPs may believe that it would be better for the artists to benefit from the resale of their work, rather than a dealer. I can imagine colleagues from all political persuasions trooping into the European Parliament, thinking that their proposals will support young artists who will receive the benefits from their work in the future. In fact, they could not be more wrong.
I declare an interest—I was an art student. I was one of the rebels in the 1960s at Hornsey—the most famous art college in the world at that time. We destroyed that reputation pretty effectively. However, it was at that time that I began to understand that the network of dealers and the way in which the art trade works in London is vital in encouraging the undergrowth of young artists, creative talent and experts which later grows into great artists and great industries.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but he mentioned the European Parliament. On 10 December 1996, the rapporteur of a Committee reporting to the European Paliament said:
It is important that the harmonisation does not lead to the decline of the art market within the European Union and its displacement to the United States or elsewhere.
There is some common sense evident in that opinion—I wonder how much further forward it has been taken.

Dr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that, because I do not think that any progress has been made. That is the problem. I suspect that the gut reaction of many MEPs has been that the issue is a small one among many and that they may as well go along with the Commission.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton, my predecessor in this job—in fact, he was my predecessor but one, as I came in after a little earthquake in July—made an important point. The Commission contends that harmonisation of the artists' resale right is a single market measure, but article 100A is the appropriate legal basis. The Commission rejects suggestions that the measure is a fiscal or social one, meriting a change in the legal base. In all honesty, I see no possibility of persuading the Commission to change the legal base.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the possibility of our getting allies to fight this cause, but we have sought in vain for allies, as the previous Government did. We would have to get all the other member states to agree, as unanimity would be required in the Council. Article 173 provides scope for challenge, but only in relation to acts that are already adopted. We have significant doubts about whether the Commission has properly justified the proposal as an article 100A measure. Its failure to produce an impact report only compounds our doubts.

Sir Michael Spicer: What is the Government's position? A little confusion seems to have arisen in the House of Lords. On 28 January, Lord McIntosh gave a firm assurance that there would be no increase in the rate of VAT on art. I am told that Baroness Jay is now running around saying that that assurance was not a firm one and back-tracking on it.

Dr. Howells: I have not heard what Baroness Jay has said. We are implacably opposed to an increase in VAT and we will fight it however we can. I was very grateful to my long-term friend, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), when he brought up the use of the Luxembourg arrangement—I have heard it called an arrangement, an agreement and a compromise—which I will consider seriously, because it is a central issue. The right hon. Member for Wells said that it was worth making a stand, and I agree entirely.

Mr. David Davis: I have every sympathy with my friend the Minister. Let me give him what I hope will be helpful advice, because I know what will happen: his officials and those at the Foreign Office will say that a Luxembourg compromise is not a good idea as it rocks the boat too much. That is what they always say. On at least one occasion, and I think on two, I have witnessed France invoking a Luxembourg compromise, claiming a vital national interest, most recently about a shipping industry issue, which was no bigger than this issue and was certainly not unique to France. That compromise was accepted by Germany and the rest of the Council. I have never heard of a better case than ours for a Luxembourg compromise.

Dr. Howells: I am grateful for that advice, and I undertake to consider it seriously and try to argue my corner.
Little has been said with which I disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised an important issue that is not widely understood: the centrality of the trade. The trade is enormously important and tells us something about the way in which wealth is generated today. We have hundreds of debates on the coal and steel industries and on all sorts of manufacturing sectors, but we probably have only one great cluster in this country that is world class: the City.
The City attracts industries—some of them, including the art trade, have been around for a long time—that are integral to it. It is a way of life that generates wealth and creativity. The business of intellectual property rights, encouraging and rewarding creativity, makes a reality of the rhetoric, in which the Government and the previous Government have indulged constantly, of adding value to


work. If we are to add value in a real sense by encouraging the undergrowth of young talent, we will have to get this right.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wells was correct in his analysis of why the measure was being pushed through under the German presidency. I know that the Austrians were keen to go ahead with it but could not find the time. I am amazed that Commissioner Monti sees fit not to publish his report. It will be months late. This is important to the British economy and, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, to the European economy as a whole, but the Commission does not understand that importance. It is perhaps not properly understood that the art market is one of the drivers of the modern economy.
It seems a paradox that dealing in fine art, much of it old, should be so controversial. If we cannot encourage our young people to become artists, writers and designers, melding science and creativity, as some of our most brilliant companies do, we will not survive as a first-rate exporting nation. What we are discussing is crucial to that.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister comment on what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about fraud in the art market, and in particular the haemorrhaging of VAT when works of art are illegally exported out of the European Union?

Dr. Howells: It is interesting that the music industry has decided to employ its own police and investigators to track down piracy across the globe. Some romance attaches to computer piracy, but it is thieving—it is stealing other people's creativity and invention—and there is no doubt that the same is true in the art world.
It has been said that the industry could be driven underground. That would be the worst outcome. We cannot afford to do that. It is important that beautiful paintings, ceramics and other objects can be seen by the public and that we do not have a sub-culture of gangsterism, which could very well arise from the measure. I give the House an undertaking to continue the good work that was done by the previous Government in trying by all means to prevent that.

Mr. Tyrie: Since the European Commission continues to refuse to publish its report, will the Government publish their own estimate of the effects of the introduction of VAT and of droit de suite, and give it the widest possible publicity?

Dr. Howells: I certainly want us to present coherently the arguments that right hon. and hon. Members have made today, and the argument that we will put to the Internal Market Council on 25 February. As we speak, the matter is being discussed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives; it is that urgent. I hope that the messages that have come to me this morning will have some impact on the deliberations in Brussels, and I once again thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Human Rights (Women)

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank Madam Speaker for allocating time for a debate on an extremely important issue previously, I believe, unmentioned in this place, probably due to a form of political correctitude. The debate concerns mainly the treatment of Asian Muslim women by their families. I pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for giving me a great deal of support over the past 22 months on this subject and for encouraging me to call for this debate.
A few months ago, I met a couple called Jack and Zena Briggs. They had committed the unforgivable crime of falling in love and ultimately marrying. They are from Bradford, and their story has been told many times. Zena's fate had been sealed virtually from birth when her parents promised her to a first cousin in Pakistan, a young man whom she despised and regarded as arrogant, who had no English and who treated women as beneath contempt.
On the fateful day six years ago when Jack and Zena decided to run away and marry, they knew that there would be problems but hoped that, eventually, her family would accept Jack, as his family accepted her. That was not to be. To this day, a death sentence hangs over the couple, and, over the years, the otherwise decent Bradford Asian family has employed private detectives, bounty hunters and hit men to seek out their once much-loved daughter for the purpose of killing her and her husband, even stooping to punishing them by terrifying Jack's elderly mother who was dying of cancer.
Speaking of their present predicament, Zena said:
Every time there's a knock on the door your pulse quickens, not knowing who it is. Every time the phone rings, as you're picking it up and saying 'hello' you're thinking, Is this them? Have they finally found us? Is this another trick call to lure us to a rendezvous where we'll meet our deaths? When you're walking in the street and a car slowly pulls up at the side of you, you try not to freeze, as the palms of your hands begin to sweat, your breathing becomes rapid, your heart starts beating ten to the dozen. Is this someone just innocently asking for directions? Or could it be your executioner wanting to make sure it's you before he grabs you and pulls you into the car?
You have no idea how it will happen when it happens.
John McCarthy, who well understands the effects of spending years on a form of death row, wrote the introduction to their book "Jack and Zena". To put their tragedy into context, I can do no better than quote him:
It is very hard to believe that this is happening in Britain today. But it is, and the story raises important questions about how we move on as a multiracial society. How can a family be free to plan to kill a daughter and the man she loves while the establishment appears unable or unwilling to work for a resolution? It is too simple to say that her family must just be made to drop their threats. Their actions come out of a cultural tradition that needs to be understood before it can be reformed. Reformed it must be for the sake of many other youngsters who wish to take up the personal opportunities of living in a multicultural society. It is vital for us to learn from this story to be better equipped to fight against racism. It is a tragic irony that it is Jack and Zena, the victims of this awful culture clash, who are the shining light of race relations in this situation.
On the day that I met Zena, I also met Asiya, although that is not her real name. At the age of 15, she was forced into a marriage with a much older man. After a few days of appalling treatment by him, she waited for her strength


to return and, when sure that he was soundly asleep, made her escape. She phoned her mum, told her harrowing story, and asked if she could return to the family home. Her mother was completely unmoved, demanded that Asiya should go back to her husband and threatened that if she returned home, she would be killed. Asiya, now 16, is still on the run. Those two lovely, lively girls asked me to raise their tragic stories, whenever and however I could. I am unable to give any background to Asiya's story, save for the fact that she had a west Yorkshire—possibly Bradford—accent, and was too scared to give any details either to me or anyone else.
Having talked to many people in the Keighley and Bradford areas, and to female Muslim social and community workers in London, including a woman from the Muslim Parliament, I have formed the view that the increasing incidence of forced marriages, or attempted forced marriages, has little to do with religion. The question that I have asked myself and others so often over the past two years is why families are prepared to go to such lengths to force their daughters into such unsuitable marriages. The answer is often that it is their culture and that outsiders such as myself should not interfere with what are essentially community and family matters.
I cannot accept that view, nor did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) who rescued two girls from a dreadful situation in Pakistan, which had been inflicted on them by their father. His brave, decisive actions effectively put his head on the political chopping block, a fate that I trust will not befall me and my hon. Friends who will raise similar issues this morning.
When, in 1983, I found myself unemployed for 12 months, I volunteered to become an unqualified teacher of English as a second language to young Asian women in their homes, mainly in the Highfield area of Keighley. I took on three women—Asiya, Ruqia and Ghanimat Jan—and spent every Wednesday morning with them for four years, learning a great deal more from them than they ever learned from me and, of course, getting involved—probably too involved—with family problems, disputes and celebrations. They all came here as young brides and, in common with young women entering the United Kingdom today in similar circumstances, had little, if any, English. They therefore had no knowledge of their civil or human rights. Worst of all, they had no immediate family to turn to if their in-laws were giving them a hard time.
To give an idea of what it was like for the women we were to help, we were given "Finding a voice" by Amrit Wilson, which was reprinted in 1981. One of the hundreds of quotes from Asian women sums up quite well their unhappiness at being taken to and abandoned in this very strange, cold, hostile country:
You ask me how I felt when we arrived here? Bad—I felt bad, to leave them all, everyone back in the village. Did I expect it to be like this? No, tell me, how could I? After all, I had never been here before, there was no means of knowing. I used to cry, not knowing anyone or anything, missing my own home. To live in one room after living in a country when houses are so open … It was hard, very hard.
I find the plight of those women, and their vulnerability, a greater worry than the plight of our UK Asian women. Many Bradford and Keighley women from both of those groups have good reason to be grateful to

Philip Balmforth, a retired policeman who helps Asian women escape, go into hiding and live with some degree of security. Working alongside West Yorkshire police and Bradford social services department, he helps women fleeing domestic violence who are referred to him by doctors, nurses and social workers. He also helps the growing number of younger women who approach him for help to avoid unwanted marriages or who, having gone through the marriage—unwillingly—wish to leave. Many of those women are eventually helped by the very well-regarded Manningham housing association in Bradford.
The number of referrals to Philip has gone up from 168 in 1996 to 283 in 1998. Some are Sikh, but they are mainly Muslim; and the increase is mainly among young UK women avoiding marriages. My only explanation for this growth is that there is an ever-increasing number of women reaching maturity who regard themselves as of a cross culture, with different aspirations to their mothers. Many will have much more in common with girls from the indigenous population than with male cousins in Pakistan who have no English, who have lived their lives in tiny Mirpur villages and who know only rural life and agricultural work. Yet our young women are expected to marry those men.
Since I started preparing this speech, an article in last Sunday's edition of The Observer has been drawn to my attention. It is so very relevant that I shall quote from it, as much of it ties up with the type of situations that I hear about in Keighley and Bradford. I do not know where the woman mentioned in the article comes from, nor do I know where the three girls she talks about live. The article, by Carol Sarler, is entitled "The silence of the imams … while another child dies". It states:
Take three girls, linked by nothing save their fathers' faith and the fact that I knew all of them. The first was a bright, young schoolfriend of my daughter whose parents suddenly announced, when she reached 15, that she'd be leaving school shortly to prepare for her marriage to a strange and older man. My daughter asked me, on the frightened child's behalf, if I would hide her—but, even as I weighed my conscience against Holloway prison my dilemma was removed: the child had mysteriously changed her mind about the man.
We find that that happens all the time. Neither Sarler nor her daughter ever saw the girl again. The article goes on:
The second girl was only 14 when her own family beat her, kidnapped her and imprisoned her—all designed to knock the Western stuffing out of her—and then began to plan her wedding. She escaped but was almost murdered in the process and now lives as a teenage exile far from all she ever knew.
The third was a neighbour. A darling little thing, perhaps 16, with a sweet, shy smile and a puppy dog eagerness to please the husband who had been found for her. For his part, she was there to work and breed, and she most certainly wasn't allowed to mix with anyone else. So I didn't get to know her well at all. Still I was sorry when, one lonely day, she hanged herself.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not oppose arranged marriages as such. My assistant in Keighley, Shamim, has just gone through such a marriage, and is perfectly happy with the situation. My appeal to the Asian Muslim parents of Keighley—and beyond—is that they should discuss with their daughters the plans that they have for their future. If the daughters do not like their parents' choice and would prefer to marry a man from their own cultural background, then their parents only have to look around to discover that there are many eligible Muslim bachelors in West Yorkshire. Those men will also have the advantage of being able to get work and will therefore not be a drain on the daughters' families.
My other appeal is to the leaders of the Asian Muslim community. I hope that they will encourage their people to put their daughters' happiness, welfare and human rights first. If they do, their community will progress and prosper, in line with the Sikh and Hindu communities.
Because my own daughter-in-law is from an Asian family, I am not blind to the many benefits of belonging to such a family, whose members are more supportive of each other than is the rule in the west. We must also recognise that Asian women must not seek help outside their community or even family, as that is regarded as a betrayal. Therefore, the cries for help that we hear may be just the tip of the iceberg and we must remember that Members of Parliament—especially those of us who are women—are here to listen and support without being judgmental. Our Asian women constituents are perfectly entitled to expect the same human rights as are afforded to us and to our daughters. They are also entitled to expect us to help them to enjoy those human rights.
Finally, I want to touch briefly on the plight of another group of women whose every human right has been removed since the Taliban took over most of Afghanistan. That vast country, in which there are thousands of widows after years of internal and external wars, is now ruled by men who have reduced the role of women to that of child bearers. They are barred from education, medical care or any means of earning a living, which means that the children of widows are reduced to begging and scavenging for food. As and when the money is available, the widows cannot even go out to shop without being escorted by a close male member of their family: if they do not have such a relative, they leave their homes risking a severe beating.
The United States of America in particular—and this country to a lesser extent—fed the Afghan war machine over many years. It is thought that American dollars are still being used to support the Taliban. I hope and trust that that does not have even the tacit support of our Government, and that we will do all in our power to rescue Afghanistan and its women from the Taliban's culture of cruelty and human degradation.
I should also like to mention that, at a meeting in Paris about a year ago of the Western European Union, a report was presented on the situation in Afghanistan. The rapporteur was a French socialist, and he claimed that many of the Madrasas had young men from just inside Pakistan who join the Taliban forces, and were supported by money from the Central Intelligence Agency. I do not know whether that is true, and the report was disappointing in that it failed to mention the plight of Afghanistan's women. That had to be put right by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who did a great job in that regard.
Finally, I wish to thank the Council of Europe Equal Opportunities Committee, of which I am a member, for raising internationally, at a conference in December, the tragedy that continues to be Afghanistan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for giving his time to reply to this debate.

Jackie Ballard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate, and on her brave and moving speech, which I am sure will have affected everyone in the House.
All hon. Members would agree that it is a basic human right to have a voice, and to be heard and represented. In my remarks, I shall concentrate on the issue of representation. I am sure that all hon. Members would also agree that women's voices are essential to a healthy democracy and a healthy society. I do not believe that only women can represent women, but a legislature that does not have the same gender balance as the population as a whole cannot call itself representative.
Here I must make the obvious confession: my party has failed dismally in that regard, with only three women Members of this Parliament. However, we will have a better balance in the European Parliament after June, and we have the highest percentage of women councillors in local government. The party is taking steps to address our failings in that regard.

Ms Jenny Jones: I know that we are discussing an important matter in the debate, but the hon. Lady mentioned the number of women in her party and it has not escaped our notice that her party is going through a leadership contest at the moment. Does she have it in mind that her party might deal with the problem that she has described by having a woman leader?

Jackie Ballard: I could not possibly comment on that. However, the other day, I received a document from the Council for Parity Democracy. That document, which lists every woman in the world who is head of government or head of state, or who leads business or international organisations, is only 20 pages long. There are not nearly enough women leaders around the world, and perhaps my party could make a start on changing that. One never knows.
Other parties, here and abroad, are also tackling the issue of women's participation in democracy. That is a key aspect of the British Council's work in many developing countries, with which I and some Labour Members have been involved over the past couple of years. I shall speak briefly about the institutional changes that this Government have made to improve women's lives, and then give an example from one of the countries that I have visited.
First, I was disappointed—as I am sure were some Labour Members—that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was suddenly moved aside from her post as Minister for Women, even though she had proved to be quite effective. That did not give a very good message about the Government's intentions with regard to women. I am not throwing any aspersions about her replacement, although the Minister for Public Health, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), has other ministerial responsibilities, which obviously make the job more difficult.
One of the concerns of the women's unit is to increase the number of women who serve on public bodies. At the moment, only 31 per cent. of appointees to public bodies are women. If one looks more closely at the figures, one finds that most of those are in unpaid posts. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has the best record, employing women in 36 per cent. of paid posts and 28 per cent. of unpaid posts in the past two years. In contrast, women fill only 26 per cent. of paid posts and 86 per cent. of unpaid posts in the Department of Health, which clearly has a long way to go.
Only 10 per cent. of our judges are women, and there are even fewer women in the higher courts. What is the Lord Chancellor doing to redress that imbalance? He must be pushed on the issue. Male judges have shown their inability to deal sensitively with crimes against women, such as rape and domestic violence. We are told that dealing with domestic violence is a key priority of the Government, but there is still much to be done to increase resources for women seeking refuge, improve training of police officers and conduct regular monitoring of reports of domestic violence, all of which is almost non-existent.
I was recently in Mexico with the British Council, attending a seminar on work in that country on women's rights, aimed at increasing women's participation in decision making. The position of women in the societies of many countries that signed the Beijing declaration, such as Mexico, is well behind that of the United Kingdom, yet, because they start from a low base, they put in place more effective structures than we have here. In Mexico, for example, the gender and equity parliamentary commission, which plays a similar role to a Select Committee, has a remit to look at the impact of all legislation on gender and equity. We might do well to consider that model.
The Mexican Government have embarked on a programme to establish a women's unit in each of the 32 states. We might well consider such a decentralised model, in which women's units work with state and local governments to implement a programme to improve women's rights. That enables the Government to respond to specific issues in different places in different regions, where there are different rates of progress, and where large indigenous populations, ethnic minorities or rural women have different needs than women in the city.
It is more than two decades since the framework of laws was implemented in the UK to try to eliminate sexual discrimination—which has usually, but not exclusively, been against women—in education and training, employment and consumer affairs. The Equal Opportunities Commission has recently proposed reforming sex equality laws by the introduction of a single sex equality Act, which would be based on the principle of equal treatment, and which would put the onus on employers and service providers to comply with the law, rather than the complainant having to take the case to a tribunal. I hope that the Government will very soon be able to respond to the EOC proposal, and inform the House when we can expect sex equality legislation in the Queen's Speech.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say in his response to the debate when the Government will set up a human rights commission. I apologise to him that I shall have to leave a few minutes before the end of the debate, although I let him know about that earlier.
When we have a voice as women and as Members of Parliament, we should use it to the advantage of all those without a voice. Around the world, many women are held back by traditions, cultural and otherwise, which prevent them from exercising their choice. The hon. Member for Keighley described how that impacts on many women in this country. The Beijing declaration came to the clear view that women's views must be heard, that a nation's progress depends on the progress of women and that the

strength of the political system depends on the inclusion of women. Human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) to hear that I agree with just about everything she said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on obtaining this debate and on her excellent and moving speech. Nobody should underestimate the courage that it took to make such a speech. I shall speak on many of the issues that she raised, but, given the virtual worldwide silence on women's human rights, I make no apology for doing so. Today should mark the beginning of an effective campaign to highlight the plight of millions of women and children, whose basic human rights are violated daily in the name of culture or religion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I do not speak in any superior, patronising way, as I am only too well aware of the history of my country, and the crimes against women and humanity that it has committed globally and at home. In supporting this debate, my hon. Friend and I shall probably face accusations of racism or Islamophobia, but experiences, and what I have seen as I have travelled the world as a Member of Parliament, make it clear that silence is not an option any more.
Female circumcision is not just a problem in the developing world; it happens in the west. There is a case about it in Paris at the moment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) will speak about what is happening in Britain. The World Health Organisation has stated:
most of the girls and women who have been subjected to female genital mutilation live in 28 African countries, although some live in Asia and the Middle East.
Due to immigration, some live in Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States of America, too. It is estimated that about 140 million women and girls worldwide have suffered that dreadful practice, and that a further 2 million girls are annually at risk.
Female genital mutilation—or FGM, as it is called—comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of external female genitalia, or other injury to female genital organs, whether for cultural, religious or non-therapeutic reasons. The procedures are always totally irreversible. They are harmful to the health of women and girls, and the effects last a lifetime. Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region, haemorrhage, and infection, which can often lead to death in the poorest areas of the world. Long-term consequences are horrendous, and include incontinence, painful sexual intercourse, sexual dysfunction and the possibility of HIV infection. The risk of maternal death and stillbirth is greatly increased, especially in the absence of skilled health personnel.
That is torture on a massive scale. It is committed against millions of girls and women every year, yet where is the outcry? Who is saying much about it? Insomniacs will have heard a good programme at 3 o'clock this morning on the BBC World Service, in which Dr. Olienka, a very brave Nigerian woman who has led a one-woman crusade, and other women spoke about the practice in Sierra Leone. How many Parliaments debate


the obscenity? How many times has the United Nations Security Council, the Group of Seven or the United Nations itself debated, on a world platform, that crime against humanity? The truth is that they do not because the victims are female. The practice violates every part of the universal declaration of human rights.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Lady will be heartened to know that female genital mutilation was discussed during negotiations in Beijing. Does she agree that, far too often, people brush the subject under the carpet and do not want to talk about it because it is taboo and not to be discussed in the open? We have a duty, particularly as women parliamentarians, to speak out about the matter and to say that it is absolutely wrong.

Mrs. Mahon: I agree with the hon. Lady. The practice is a absolute violation of human rights, yet it is conducted in the name of religion or for cultural reasons, among Christian as well as Muslim women. It predates such religions, so the religions cannot claim that it is done for religious reasons. I believe that it is done to control women and to keep them under the thumb, so to speak.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Often, such practices and other human rights violations are dismissed as village Islam—just as a village in Poland might be more Catholic than the Pope. Does my hon. Friend agree that religious leaders have a responsibility to teach their flocks exactly what their religion says and not to allow ignorance to develop?

Mrs. Mahon: Absolutely. Such mutilation has nothing to do with the great religions of the world. It is an abuse and a violation.
I shall briefly discuss what is happening in Afghanistan. When the South African Government declared a state of apartheid—an inhuman system, which institutionalised the supposedly superior status of whites in all political, economic and social matters—the world was rightly outraged. How could the civilised world stand by and watch such an obscenity take place? That white South African state became a pariah state, and a magnificent campaign was fought, in which many of us were involved, to end that evil.
Where is the outcry against gender apartheid in Afghanistan? Who is speaking out about the human catastrophe taking place there? Where are the major debates in the United Nations? When there was apartheid in South Africa—a dreadful evil, which I helped to oppose—it was an almost weekly issue for discussion. However, since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan, women and girls have been legally—under the Taliban—subjected to extreme conditions of exclusion. That wicked regime, in a country of millions of war-damaged people and widows, has denied basic human rights to all girls and women.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said, in Afghanistan women are barred from receiving any education. They are banned from work and are not allowed to leave home unaccompanied. They are almost under house arrest. Girls are married off, quite often, to strangers much older than themselves, and in some cases just used as sex slaves.
The Council of Europe—I am grateful for the work that it has done—has studied the situation and is trying to draw attention to it. Naturally, it condemns it. The Council of

Europe published a report in November 1998. Evidence had been taken from agencies and from Afghans who had witnessed at first hand the Taliban's treatment of women. Interestingly, the report says clearly that that treatment has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. It was taught by the Taliban in the camps in Peshawar. I tried to get there about eight years ago, but was turned back when I reached the camps. They said that I was a wicked woman, and I was not allowed to enter. Those camps taught that evil; the Pakistani Government has much to answer for in that.
Amnesty International has condemned the treatment that is inflicted on women and girls in Afghanistan. It now says that those women are prisoners of conscience, and that the restrictions should be lifted immediately.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan—one of the only three countries to recognise the Taliban regime—things are not very good for women. The plight of many women in rural areas is grim indeed. In 1979, Zia, then head of the military regime, introduced several ordinances dealing directly with women; those are still in force. The first and most notorious, the Huddood ordinance, deals with—among other things—rape, adultery, fornication and prostitution, and suggests punishments for all those crimes. Zina, the adultery clause, has led to thousands of women being imprisoned—and, in many cases, beaten and killed—just because someone, not necessarily the husband, accuses them of adultery. Zina-bil-jahr, the clause dealing with rape, states that four male Muslims of good character must have witnessed the crime of rape. That makes it almost impossible for any woman to bring charges. That is an outrage; the Pakistan Government should hang their heads in shame because they still allow it.
People in Pakistan are working to do something about what is happening there. The Pakistan commission on the status of women, which began its work in 1984—some of whose members I met when I was in Pakistan—submitted a report. Its findings were clear. It said:
the average rural woman in Pakistan is born in near slavery, leads a life of drudgery and dies invariably in oblivion".
The United Nations 1994 human rights development report said:
Pakistani women's participation in education, health, labour and politics is lower than many countries in the region, reflecting a major crisis in civil society".
I believe that anyone who saw the BBC "Correspondent" programme, "Murder in Purdah", shown in January, will realise that it is vital that all the nations of the civilised world speak out. The testimony of the 15-year-old girl, given 24 hours before she died from the horrible burns that she had received from her husband or his relatives, will haunt those who saw it for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), chairman of the all-party group on human rights, will be showing the film at 6 o'clock on Monday 15 February in one of the Committee Rooms.
The 15-year-old had been virtually sold by her father to an older man, who will probably never be punished. The film repeatedly showed how the men are allowed virtually to sell their daughters. The husbands abuse them. Quite often, if the marriage breaks down, the women end up in prison or their children are taken from them. The men who have committed the crimes walk free; they bragged about it on the documentary. A man who had shot his wife kept the gun as a trophy, and bribed his way out of prison.
We must campaign for the abolition of the Zina laws and the Huddood ordinances. The Pakistani Government cannot claim to be part of the civilised family of nations while it allows those crimes against women.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I should like to finish by coming closer to home. I, too, was moved by Carol Sarler's article in The Observer. I believe that every woman from every community from certain parts of the subcontinent can associate with her opening remarks, which my hon. Friend so movingly read out.
Just this week, I have had yet another case of a young woman—a very bright, well-educated young woman, born in Halifax—who, last year, was tricked into going on holiday and married against her will. As she is well educated and has spirit, she is objecting to the marriage and has decided that the young man will not be brought into this country. However, we must question the role of the institutions that should be protecting those young, in this case Yorkshire—Halifax—girls. Obviously, they are being badly let down by the institutions. The law, it seems, is not for them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), who rescued Rifat Haq, who was 20 years old, and Nazia, who was 13 years old, who were abducted by their own father and married off. At 13, that is illegal in Pakistan as well as Britain, and we should be speaking out about it. The veil of silence should be lifted on that practice.
I want to mention Zoora Shah, a Bradford woman, who for 20 years was beaten and raped and made to sleep with other men by Mohammed Azam, the brother of Sher Azam—former head of the city's council for mosques. When that evil man tried to abuse her daughters, she poisoned him; but, because she was too ashamed, for cultural reasons, to defend herself properly, she was given a life sentence.
A few streets away in the same city, Shabir Hussain killed his sister-in-law, Tasleem Begum, in an "honour killing", because her arranged marriage had failed and she wanted to run her own life. He ran her down three times in his car and was sentenced to life for murder, but on appeal had his sentence reduced to one for manslaughter. Passing judgment, Judge Hodson said:
I accept there has been considerable pressure on you for the last few years. Something blew up in your head that caused you a complete and sudden loss of control".
That judgment was outrageous. The double standards applied in those two cases are mind-blowing—the result of the conspiracy of silence surrounding anything to do with basic human rights for Asian women. We are in danger of importing the principles of Zina and the Huddood ordinances into the streets and cities of this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and I intend to campaign for an end to gender apartheid. We want the victims to contact us here in the House of Commons. We intend to lobby, to harass and to ensure that all the agencies that should be protecting women to do their jobs. Lest there be accusations of racism, let me say that, like my hon. Friend, I have black grandchildren who are the absolute joy of my life. I reject any accusation of racism. I have friends whom I love in the Muslim

community. I certainly was not popular politically for opposing the bombing in Iraq against ordinary Muslims. Any claims of racism are nonsensical.
I have read the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and there is no exclusion clause explaining that the declaration does not cover female genital mutilation. There is no footnote excluding Afghan women, or Pakistani women in Bradford, Halifax, Keighley, Wolverhampton or Glasgow. Universal means every man, woman and child on this planet. If we do not speak up for that, we deny human rights for millions of women and girls.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Unless speeches are reasonably brief, many will be disappointed.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is not often that I wholeheartedly agree with Labour Members. However, this morning I have heard two speeches that I admired. I would like to join other colleagues in offering my unreserved congratulations to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on having the courage to initiate this debate and to make her voice heard on behalf of women who are undoubtedly abused, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is starting a campaign, perhaps she will give some consideration to talking to me about it. I would be very willing to join any campaign that would end the barbaric practices that are perpetrated against women throughout the world.
Slightly more than 50 years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations produced the universal declaration of human rights, which followed the dark days of the second world war. Those were dark days in our own history in Europe. However, the declaration made it clear that the rights that it expounded were for all people without exception. Though much progress has been made over the past 50 years, as I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members would acknowledge, much more is needed around the globe.
The debate seeks to highlight the single gender, and I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with that. However, I say at the outset that I would not want a single gender debate to remove the highlight from human rights in general—the human rights that belong to both men and women. If we practise the politics of inclusion and believe in equal opportunities, we should not narrow our horizons and ignore 50 per cent. of the population.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I accept what the hon. Lady says about making her remarks apply to both sexes. However, does she agree with me that nowadays, the nature of war, and especially civil war, means that women and children are disproportionately affected? Many more women have their human rights abused because of war and civil war throughout the world now than ever before. This is one of the main problems. War has become war against women, who are raped, mutilated and abducted. They are damaged far more than the male of the species.

Mrs. Gillan: I do not wish to have a disagreement with the hon. Lady because I have sympathy with her remarks.


However, it would be narrow-minded to imagine for a moment that it is not possible to damage men, to damage boy children, to rape boy children and to rape men. I would not want to enter into a debate in which we held a competition to determine who was abused more. The abuses of civil war and war in general are well known, sadly, to all right hon. and hon. Members.
I wish to focus on the fact that there must be equality of attitude towards the debate, although at the same time, we must highlight the special and particular treatment for which women are often singled out, particularly in the name of religion.
When I was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, I had the privilege of signing the declaration on the platform for action in Beijing. The then Government took the matter so seriously that we sent three Ministers to Beijing. It was not a jolly for the three Ministers and it was not a trip on Concorde. Three very senior Ministers went to Beijing to do a job of work, not only on behalf of the women of the United Kingdom, but on behalf of women throughout the world. I pay tribute to Baroness Chalker and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who attended the conference with me.
I pay tribute also to the non-governmental officers who attended the conference, in far more difficult circumstances than myself. A parallel conference for NGOs took place down the road. Due to adverse weather conditions and the poor preparation of the buildings that were to be used, many of the NGOs were up to their knees in mud. There was a tremendous spirit among the NGOs, the politicians and the representatives who had made it to Beijing to negotiate the platform for action.
Sadly, the negotiating team that I used and the equal opportunities unit within the Department for Education and Employment have now been broken up. The Government have had four Ministers with responsibilities for women in less than two years, including one who was unpaid. I believe that the message that is going out to women is completely wrong. Perhaps the Conservative Government were not quite so up-front about our policies for women. We never promised a ministry for women. I believe that the previous Government made good progress on rights for women and that the present Government have caused a great deal of disappointment throughout the country. However, that is not the main thrust of my speech.
At Beijing, I met women who took my breath away. I met women who had been tortured and mutilated. I met women whose very lives were in danger because of their presence at the conference. These were real women and real injustices. I heard stories at first hand which ranged from bride burning to female genital mutilation, and from rape to female infanticide. Sadly, we can travel around the globe and collect stories of abuses as we move from country to country.
In common with those who have already spoken in this debate, I wish to highlight three areas where crimes against women are rife and, sadly, are often committed in the name of religion, or because one religion does not tolerate another. I am grateful to Christian Solidarity Worldwide for its briefings on this subject and I have no hesitation in reading from them. I think that the House would wish to hear particular stories from India and Pakistan.
At the end of last year, four nuns belonging to a missionary group, the Foreign Missionary Sisters, were gang raped by suspected Hindu militants in the Jhabua district of Madhya Pradesh in central India. The four Catholic nuns were all under 35 years of age. They were dragged out of their convent, taken to a nearby field and gang raped by 15 to 20 men. The police claim that they have arrested four people in connection with the incident, but have declined to disclose their identity.
The assailants first knocked at the door of the convent, pretending that they needed urgent medical help for someone. The nuns were unconvinced and refused to open the door. They barricaded themselves in a chapel, but the assailants broke into the convent and ransacked the whole building before dragging the nuns from the chapel and taking them to the fields to be raped. All four of the nuns were from the state of Tamil Nadu and working for FMS, a humanitarian medical organisation which was set up to provide medical help to people bereft of medical facilities in the remote rural areas of the country.
I do not say that a nun is better than any other woman, but the incident serves my purpose in showing that people could choose women who were in the area for humanitarian purposes and that the authorities do not pursue to the nth degree the perpetrators of such a revolting and abhorrent crime.
We have heard about the situation in Pakistan. Again, Christian Solidarity Worldwide has provided me with a brief, which states:
Every morning, teeming multitudes of under-nourished women are gobbled up by the smoky brick buildings of factories and disgorged in the evening after a heavy day's labour. Millions of other women are bent in back-breaking labour in the fields and farms and in the muddy courtyards of cramped dwellings from dawn to dusk. Few women have formal work in Pakistan. However, those who do often find themselves subject to discriminatory treatment in the workplace with lower pay and poorer working conditions and security than their male counterparts.
Discrimination stretches beyond the workplace, affecting the political, legal and social status of women. Legally, the evidence of a woman is worth half that of a man. Worse still, the evidence of a Christian woman is not accepted at all in cases filed under Sharia law. However, such women can still be charged, convicted and punished under Sharia law.
Incidents of rape and violence against women are a daily news item. As we heard, the Huddood laws relating to rape require the eye-witness testimony of four adult male witnesses for rape to be proved. That is ridiculous; it denies justice to many of the victims of rape in that country. However, if rape is unproven, the unfortunate girl is charged with adultery. That cannot be right under any religion or any laws. No politician in any state could possibly endorse that.
Political representation of women remains low. Although some efforts are being made to ensure that women have seats in Parliament, their tragedy often goes unheard because they have no real voice.
Finally, I shall deal with Afghanistan, as other hon. Members have touched on the subject. For me, the present situation in Afghanistan represents some of the worst treatment handed out to women across the globe. We have heard how women are prevented from seeking employment. Women doctors are prohibited from practising their trade. Education is not permitted for female children. Women are not allowed to walk down


the street unless accompanied by a man. Amnesty International, which collects and catalogues some of the worst abuses of human rights, came across a case only a couple of years ago in which the Taliban had a woman's thumb cut off because she wore nail varnish.
The Minister who is to reply to the debate has not been known for speaking in women's debates in the House. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and hope that he will make a fine contribution in what, I believe, will be his first debate on women's issues. I hope that he sits on the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues, which was started under the Conservative Government. Perhaps in the course of his winding-up speech he will tell us how many times that Cabinet Sub-Committee has met.
I urge the Minister to ensure that continuous and strong representations are made to the three countries that I have highlighted, in particular to Afghanistan and the Taliban. In their daily business of running the country and representing its interests and views abroad, Ministers should keep at the forefront of their minds the countless women and girls who die or are damaged each day from gender-based discrimination, and on every possible occasion they should support and promulgate human rights for all—men and women.
Whether distributing aid, negotiating a trade deal or making a diplomatic visit, Ministers should keep human rights in mind so that we can continue to make progress over the next 50 years, as we have over the past 50 years. Ministers should not go abroad or discuss any matter with their opposite numbers, no matter from which country they come, without attempting to draw human rights abuses to their colleagues' attention and helping to eradicate some of the worst treatment imaginable of one human being by another.

Ms Jenny Jones: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate. Everyone in the House agrees that she does not lack courage in raising this important and sensitive subject.
I serve on the Council of Europe with my hon. Friend; we are both members of the equal opportunities committee there. As we have heard, the committee has been taking evidence on the situation in Afghanistan. The House might also be interested to know that last year, shortly after the committee was formed, one of the first topics with which we had to get to grips was the news that virginity testing had been re-introduced in Turkey. Thanks to the women and the men on the equal opportunities committee, we succeeded in getting that proposal widely publicised and stopped. We are very busy on the Council of Europe these days.
Last week, my constituency office received a telephone call from a distraught young woman who told my staff the story of her cousin's wife, who is a constituent of mine. My constituent, whom I shall not name for reasons that will shortly become obvious, had married a man of whom her parents did not approve. The marriage had been against their wishes. Shortly after her marriage, she and her husband decided to go to Pakistan for a family visit. She wanted to meet her husband's family there.
When the couple arrived at the village, they were both arrested and locked up in the local police gaol. It transpired that my constituent's family in Pakistan had

brought charges against her and her husband. They had accused her husband of kidnapping her and they had accused her of stealing the family jewellery, which was part of the dowry. More seriously, a male relative of my constituent had stationed himself outside the gaol and said that he would shoot her if she was released.
My constituent is a British citizen. She asked to be given access to the British embassy in Islamabad and was refused. She and her husband were kept in the lock-up for almost three days before his family found out where they were. They telephoned their family in Wolverhampton, who immediately contacted my office. We immediately involved the British embassy in Islamabad.
I congratulate the official at the embassy, who took immediate action. Embassy staff contacted the police station, pointed out that a British citizen had been arrested and asked why. Negotiations took place. The police dropped the charges, which the family considered to have been trumped up. They released the couple and gave them protective custody until they could reach my constituent's husband's family where they felt safe.
Everyone concerned took seriously the threat to kill my constituent. The House will note that it was the woman, not her husband, who was to be killed. My constituent will shortly return to the United Kingdom. She has family in this country, and I am seriously beginning to wonder what will happen to her when she returns to the UK. Needless to say, I shall keep in close contact with her and her family to make sure that she will be all right.
That story shocks me, as do the others that we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The stories are so shocking because the women involved are taking the sort of decision about their personal lives that all other women in this country take, but they are being forced to pay a terrible price for doing so. They are being put through hell for making choices that the rest of us take for granted.
In telling the House of my constituent's experiences, I do not point the finger at any one faith or culture. All faiths have their zealots. At present, almost every religion is grappling with fundamentalism; it is not a phenomenon associated particularly with Islam. Unfortunately, because of the press coverage in this country, fundamentalism is automatically associated with Islam, and we have indeed heard stories from Afghanistan.
However, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out some of the effects of fundamentalist Hinduism in India. Recently, our attention has been drawn to what is happening in the United States, where fundamentalist Christians are killing people and bombing property in a campaign against family planning and access to legal abortion. We need to keep the matter in perspective. One key feature of all religious fundamentalism is the suppression of women.
Ours is an inclusive society in which we strive to understand and respect all cultures and differences, which I have often said is our strong point. But—this is a big but—we should not allow that to blind us to the practices which result in the violation of human rights of men and women. Regardless of faith and culture, it is plain wrong to kidnap and drug a woman, and to threaten or commit violence against a woman, because she wants to make a particular decision in her life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax referred to female circumcision. An article in The Independent last week said that female circumcision is being practised in


Britain. We all know about the case which is currently before the French courts, but that article said that a team of investigative journalists attached to a television company had discovered two Harley street doctors involved in female circumcision in Britain. If that is true, it is shocking. The House must speak out about it and investigate it. Another practice involves young girls born in Britain, and therefore British citizens, being sent to their families' country of origin for the operation—to me it is mutilation—and then returned to Britain. That must stop.
All are agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has been courageous in raising this sensitive issue, but we must have an intelligent debate. We cannot allow ourselves to be embroiled in arguments about racism, cultural rights, traditions and so on. Britain now has the Human Rights Act 1998. As a member of the Council of Europe, I was a particular enthusiast for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our legislation. It is one of the best things that the Government have done. However, the House must ensure that human rights are for all our daughters, regardless of their cultural background.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I, too, sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on bringing before the House all the important issues affecting women that have been raised today, in particular the question of forced arranged marriages and their consequences on social life in Britain.
I, too, have heard allegations of female genital mutilation being carried out in Britain, and the Select Committee on International Development heard evidence of that being carried out in Harley street. Other abuses, too, are suffered by British women, and we must be vigilant in stamping out such practices in Britain. They are against our law and human rights, and against British women. I should like to join any organisation that is established to campaign against these practices, so that those responsible are brought to justice and the practices about which we have heard are stamped out.

Dr. Tonge: Speaking from a medical point of view, it would be helpful if, when we campaign for the abolition of genital mutilation, we included male genital mutilation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no medical reason for male circumcision. Many small boys are seriously damaged by that operation being done by unlicensed practitioners and people who do not know how to do it properly. It may broaden the issue and make it easier for certain cultural groups to accept if we go for both forms of operation, not just one of them.

Mr. Wells: That is an excellent suggestion. I was about to say that this should be the concern of not only women, but men and women. Evidence given to the International Development Committee suggests that the law is not necessarily the way in which to stop such practices. A law against such practices is in place in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, all of which have signed up to the Peking action programme and the Cairo action programme on sexual and reproductive health drawn up five years ago. Therefore, it is not colonial or imperialist to suggest that these practices need to be stamped out in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The House may not be aware that the International Development Committee is going to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh at the end of February and the beginning of March, and our subject is gender and development. We have purposely called it that because we must get the men on our side on this issue. It is often when the imams and other men controlling such societies agree that such practices are wrong that they are most quickly stamped out, so we must involve everyone in the crusade.
The usual population balance between the genders is 52 per cent. female and 48 per cent. male. In India, that has not only been reversed, but the female population is now as low as 45 per cent. That means that practices against female children are widespread in India. Death in childbirth is one factor, but the starving and deliberate murder of girl children on birth, and amniocentesis, which allows a female embryo to be identified and aborted, are widely practised. Apart from anything else, such practices are against nature, but they are also against the law and against human rights, to which India has signed up.
We must campaign against such abuses, which feed back into Bradford, Keighley, Wolverhampton and Southall, and we must be militant about abolishing such abhorrent practices.

Ms Chris McCafferty: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on securing this important debate. I am pleased that we are having it during the week of the five-year review of the Cairo conference programme of action which put women's rights at the heart of its agenda.
Despite many international agreements affirming women's human rights, girls and women are still much more likely than men to be poor, undernourished and illiterate, and to have less access than men to education, medical care, property ownership, credit, training and employment.
Discrimination against girls often begins before birth in the preference for sons, and in too many places continues with the denial of education and medical care, and with forced teenage or even pre-teenage marriage, sex and pregnancy.
Women may be restricted to the home, sexually and physically abused without any remedy, and denied rights to own or inherit property, receive training or credit, or to take part in political or social discourse, as is the case in Afghanistan today, which was so movingly described by my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). Such treatment of women is a corruption of Islam, which teaches respect and honour for women.
At puberty, in particular, girls have specific needs that should be addressed. Access to health education alleviates trauma caused by ignorance of bodily changes, and leads to improved hygiene, the lack of which often leads to infection and sometimes death. However, in Afghanistan, that education is forbidden and in many countries, it is simply not available. Girls expect only to be mothers, and are restricted in education and employment, while boys are prepared to be heads of families. Laws against domestic violence are often not enforced on behalf of women, making women vulnerable to persistent abuse,


or even murder. When women defend themselves, or try to flee such violence, it is often they who are imprisoned, instead of the perpetrators.
Unfortunately, achieving gender equality in those areas requires the support of men, who exercise most of the power and who, in some countries, appear to want to keep their women in fear and subjugation. Investment in education for women and expanding their access to credit, training, property and legal rights give them options to achieve status and satisfaction in life, and liberate their economic potential. For centuries, child bearing has been women's chief source of security and status, and that remains the case, especially in countries where women are denied education, reproductive health care, secure livelihoods, and full and equal rights. Programmes that offer girls alternative life-style choices can help girls to stay in school and, consequently, delay child bearing. Such women tend to have fewer children.
Two thirds of the illiterate adults in the world are female, but where there are higher levels of women's education, there are also lower infant mortality and lower fertility. Women in developing nations are usually in charge of securing water, food and fuel, and they oversee their families' health and diet. They tend to put into immediate practice whatever they learn about nutrition, health care, and the preservation of the environment and natural resources.
The roles that men and women play in society are socially determined and often justified as being required by culture or religion. However, there can be no democracy without equality. If we judge a country by the conditions and status of its women, many would fall short, but in Afghanistan, women have no status at all and their life conditions are intolerable. The dreadful situation in which Afghan women are trying to survive is getting worse every day. Women's human rights are being violated daily, in the name of law and order and religion.
The restrictions imposed on women by the Taliban are not unique. In other countries in the region such as Pakistan, the quality of life for women, in terms of their status and the violation of their rights, is now little better than in Afghanistan, because of the resurgence of fundamentalism. The systematic attacks on women's rights in those countries should be a warning that regressive steps can occur anywhere and at any time. The international community has a duty to take resolute action to restore women's rights in Afghanistan, and to help to stop further deterioration of the quality of life and rights of women in other Islamic communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax told us about the most pernicious form of the violation of women's human rights: female genital mutilation—a term used for a variety of surgical operations—which is carried out on healthy, female children, mainly for traditional reasons, and which is often backed by enormous social pressure. That mutilation, often carried out with unsterilised instruments and without anaesthetic, can lead to immediate health risk and often causes long-term health damage. That it is being carried out in the luxury of Harley street is no less oppressive. The practice is prevalent in north Africa, the near east and Asia, and it is not uncommon for children born in Britain to be sent abroad to be operated on. Such children often believe that they are going to visit relatives, only to be violated by

people whom they trust. Where are the laws to protect those vulnerable children? No wonder the problem is being swept under the carpet.
Slavery, torture, and racial and ethnic prejudice are centuries old, and are now rightly condemned when they involve people of colour, political dissidents or ethnic groups. Violation of women's human rights must receive the same international censure. I urge the Government to use every possible forum to condemn the continuing abuse of women's human rights wherever it is perpetrated. In particular, I urge them to establish mechanisms to ensure that women and girls living in Britain are protected from female genital mutilation, either in this country or abroad.

Mrs. Theresa May: May I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on initiating the debate on this very important topic? We have heard a number of excellent speeches and I should particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for telling us of her experiences in these matters as a former Minister with responsibility for women. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley on her courageous speech. It cannot have been easy to stand up and say what she said today. She spoke movingly and sensitively, and her comments gained the wholehearted support of everybody in the House.
It is a sad comment on the world today that, as we stand at the brink of a new millennium, it is still necessary for us to debate restrictions on human rights faced by so many women across the world. Different examples of those restrictions have been referred to in the debate. The lot of women in the UK has been improved over the years, as society has changed. Involvement in the political process has played a part in that, as an impetus for change; it is, perhaps, appropriate that we are having this debate in the week of the 70th anniversary of the extension of the vote to women.
I must say to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that, although her speech might have been something of a leadership bid, I thought that she rather missed the point of the debate. Many other hon. Members raised issues of extreme importance that the Government must take seriously and on which they must act. In many parts of the world—and also, as we have heard, for women in certain communities in the UK—the treatment of many women has not improved greatly over many generations. Those women are still treated as second-class citizens, because of cultural attitudes and traditions that apply within their communities.
I want to mention one issue that has not been fully addressed. One of the key developments that can open opportunities to women and improve their position in society is access to education. As UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—reported at the international conference on girls' education last May, one of the problems in the world is that girls make up two thirds of the approximately 132 million children in developing countries who are not in school. There are 900 million illiterate adults in the world, of whom two thirds are female.
Education is a key to breaking out of poverty; it empowers individuals and encourages them to become active citizens. It enables them to have access to


information about choices in their lives, and provides them with the skills and understanding to make those choices. In too many places, girls are discouraged or prevented from going to school; sometimes, that issue relates to the ability to access school because of distance or the number of places available. However, all too often, girls do not go to school because they are expected to stay at home to do the chores—or to enter into an early marriage, because of early pregnancies—or simply because school is considered to be a low priority for girls.
That is a problem in particular areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia and some parts of the middle east and north Africa. It is a particular problem in Afghanistan, although I shall not refer to that in detail, because time is short and many hon. Members have already spoken of the very real concerns about the ways in which women are being appallingly treated by the Taliban regime there.
Education is not only important for itself; it offers a key to economic freedom and employment. The previous Government supported a number of projects, within the overseas aid budget, which were designed to help women to gain access to education and employment. Such projects included the micro-credit schemes, which enabled women to borrow in order to set themselves up in employment. That scheme was started in Bangladesh, but was extended, with our support, to other countries such as Kenya. We also encouraged community projects, with a particular emphasis on learning. Another issue—to which some hon. Members referred—was the important support for the provision of contraceptive advice through our children by choice not chance programme. All those moves were aimed at providing help and support to women, to enable them to make the choices necessary to change their lives.
Whatever support is provided, one fundamental problem is faced by women in many communities: the problem of cultural attitudes. There is always tension between our right to comment on alternative cultures and the freedom of others to choose to hold to those cultures. We must be sensitive to that tension, but when we see clear violations of basic human rights, it is right that we in this House should stand up and speak out, precisely as the hon. Member for Keighley and other hon. Members have done this morning.
Although we have mentioned a number of countries where there are human rights problems for women, the issues that strike us most are where there is clear evidence of abuses taking place in the UK. Although I do not have the same degree of experience as the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Keighley, I have had a constituency case in which an arranged marriage did not work and the woman found herself effectively detained against her will by her husband's family. For some, that is the stuff of paperback thrillers, but it happens to women in the UK.
Last year, I raised the issue of bounty hunters with the Home Secretary, and the Minister's response referred to the responsibilities of the police. The basic problem, however, lies with the community's attitude, which says that it is right to chase after young women who, as in the case of Zena, have chosen how they want to lead their lives. Their community says that that is wrong and is prepared to go to extreme lengths to prevent them from exercising the freedom of choice that we all take for granted. We expect that freedom of choice to be available

to all UK citizens, regardless of their community, culture or background. I am interested to hear the Minister's response on this issue. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to the need for Asian community leaders to take that issue on board. What action are the Government taking to encourage that process, and to ensure that UK citizens are provided with the same freedom of choice and the same rights?
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said that she was disappointed in the Government's attitude to women's issues. Since responsibility for women moved to the Department of Health, general women's issues have not been raised in health questions. I note that a Home Office Minister will respond to this debate. This, however, is neither the time nor the place to go into detail on that, because hon. Members have raised some serious issues and I look forward to the Minister's response.
I want to refer to the specific issue of female circumcision. Let us not call it female circumcision; female genital mutilation is the right description. It is appalling to hear what that involves for women who go through it—trauma, pain and suffering.
Members of Parliament are privileged to be able to raise these issues freely, and we have rightly exercised that privilege this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley again on securing this debate, and I trust that the Minister will respond sensitively to the issues that have been raised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): This has been an important and good debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on raising it.
I shall focus on the issue of forced marriages, but first I shall respond to some of the other issues that were raised. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked for the Government's general position on human rights. We now have more women in Parliament and in the Government than ever before, and the Government seek to address the issues of access to education, domestic violence and child care in a cross-governmental and progressive way. We shall continue to develop our programme to enhance women's rights. She specifically asked about the human rights commission. It is an open debate and we are waiting to see how it develops once we have passed the Human Rights Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) discussed the appalling evidence of female genital mutilation. It is unlawful in Britain and I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax and for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), and with the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that we must outrightly and forthrightly condemn that barbaric practice. On behalf of the Government, I condemn it. The Department for International Development is working hard in other countries to try to stop female genital mutilation.
I shall now deal with the issue of forced marriages. I wish to state clearly that forced marriages are wrong. It is distressing to hear of instances of young people entering marriages not with joy and expectation, but with trepidation and fear. That treatment of a woman within a


marriage or a relationship is unacceptable. We cannot tolerate compulsion on individuals to marry. The Government have put human rights at the heart of their agenda, and incorporated the European convention in UK law. The United Nations universal declaration on human rights states that
marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses".
Individuals' human rights should be respected by everyone. All British citizen should have equal rights and responsibilities, and respect for women's rights is central to that. It is incumbent on men and women in every community in this country to respect their partners, sisters, daughters and wives, and support them in making choices that will lead to fulfilling lives. Respect for the choices of others is important.
Different communities have different traditions, and we are proud that Britain is a multiracial society. We are the stronger for it. Our multiracial and diverse society should give due respect to different beliefs and traditions, but not at the price of conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals or the laws of this country.
The Government must respond sensitively on those issues, but multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for official silence or moral blindness. We long ago abolished laws that treated women as chattels. We cannot shelter or tolerate bad practices under the guise of sensitivity. The Bible, the Koran and other religious texts teach respect for women; the Government's position on this issue does not conflict with those great religious teachings. We must be careful that, in highlighting aspects of laws in some Muslim countries, we do not fall into the trap of branding Muslims as fundamentalists. British Muslims are, by and large, a sensible and moderate community that forms part of Britain's mainstream religious debate. This debate is not about Muslims—as one of my hon. Friends said, all faiths have their zealots; it is about behaviour which the vast majority of British Muslims would have no part in.
It is important to keep this issue, particularly its scale, in perspective. It is difficult to be precise about the scale, and I do not believe that the number of cases is large. The vast majority of families, from whichever community, want for their children more than they themselves achieved. That aspiration may include access to education, professional achievement, or marriage and family. We must recognise and understand the pressures on some families in this country today, and the problem of young people who may be forced into marriage.
Families that brought with them their traditions and values, and blended those with their responsibilities as citizens in this country, have contributed to our society in

a tremendous way over the past 40 or 50 years. Their children and grandchildren have had educational opportunities, and their families have encouraged them in that. Many of those young women may wish to take a different path in life from their parents, and a different path from that which their parents may choose for them. That is not unique to a particular community. Young men in many of our communities, particularly in areas like Yorkshire, where some of my hon. Friends come from, have suffered severely from downturns in the local economy, the closing of mills and the loss of jobs. They hold on to marriage and the prospect of marriage as fundamental to their dignity and self-pride.
Expectation of an arranged marriage may be different on the part of the parents, the young man and the young woman. When one party to the marriage still lives overseas, another factor enters the equation of whether the marriage will succeed. However, the idea of arranged marriages should be separated from that of forced marriages. Many religious and ethnic communities have a long tradition of arranged marriages, and that tradition often works well. Indeed, I am aware of no evidence that arranged marriages are less successful than marriages that involve a greater freedom of choice. I have spoken to many women whose voluntary but arranged marriages have brought them great happiness.
The concern is not about arranged marriages; it is about forced marriages. Conflicting expectations can cause marriages to break down and it is important to ensure that communities get the message that any kind of marriage needs support to ensure that it is voluntarily entered into and successful. Organisations like Women's Aid and Southall Black Sisters have made an important contribution in raising the issue of forced marriages and putting the subject on our agenda.
We have heard about the important work being done in Bradford to deal with issues such as those raised by the case of Zena and Jack, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley described in her speech. We also heard the story of Asiya, who is on the run at 16 years of age. Those are appalling stories. The Government seek to support the Bradford police's work. I had intended to go into that matter in more detail, and to discuss issues related to entry control and to Afghanistan, but lack of time prevents that.
The Government are aware of the issue of forced marriages. We will not retreat into silence on these matters. The communities involved should not ignore the fate of these girls. The victims may be small in number, but their voice will not be ignored. The vast majority of members of their community condemn their ill treatment, and many of them have spoken out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

University Students (Accommodation)

Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns about student accommodation, and to raise these issues within hours of my noble Friend Lord Tope's doing so in the other place. I trust that the Minister will agree that the current registration, inspection and enforcement of health and safety standards for student accommodation are confused and unsatisfactory. Indeed, that applies to much of the rented housing sector.
I hope that the Minister will also agree that reform of the rented housing sector is necessary. Indeed, it was one of Labour's now famous manifesto promises:
We will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation. There will be a proper system of licensing by local authorities which will benefit tenants and responsible landlords alike.
The Liberal Democrats share that manifesto commitment, and I would expect any future leader of my party vigorously to fight for it.
At present, 1.5 million students in higher education live in halls of residence, university-owned premises or private sector rented accommodation. Many of them live in shared houses. Students make up a significant proportion of the rented sector, and they suffer disproportionately because of their circumstances. For many students, that is their first experience of independent living, and it can often be a nightmare. I should declare an interest in that my son is a first-year undergraduate at Lancaster university and is discovering the joys of finding suitable accommodation for his second year.
It is not my intention to shroud-wave, but I remind the House that research on fire risk in HMOs published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1997 found that bedsit tenants are six times more likely to die as a result of fire than adults in houses occupied by a single household, and that 45 per cent. of fire deaths in houses of multiple occupation occur in buildings with one or two storeys. Deaths from leaking gas appliances and from carbon monoxide fumes are still common. Ten students have lost their lives unnecessarily since 1990.
In 1996, the English house conditions survey reported that 12 per cent. of shared houses were unfit for human habitation, rising to 23 per cent. of houses that were divided into bedsits. Both types of accommodation are typical student accommodation. The situation has, if anything, worsened since 1996. Last year, that prompted the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to issue a hard-hitting press statement, which said:
Some houses let to students are quite simply death traps. Students are in a particularly vulnerable position because they are often forced to rent housing which is on short term leases and only available to students, so removing pressure on the landlord to invest in long term improvements.
The 1997–98 National Union of Students survey of student accommodation costs revealed that 60 per cent. of a student's income goes on housing.

Mr. Harold Best: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that among the many grievous problems to which he is drawing the House's attention are those associated with the serious decline in the housing

stock and the communities where these properties are to be found? Is he aware that other hon. Members are trying to persuade the Department to move on this issue? Leeds district council is acting, with others, as a lead authority to bring about these changes.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, because Leeds has many examples of good practice. UNIPOL has done a tremendous amount to vet student accommodation in the Leeds area, and has now become a major landlord. Leeds, Lancaster and Teesside city councils have some superb schemes on the go, and they should be extended across the country, so that there is a commonality of quality rather than just isolated pockets of excellence.
Housing costs affect not only students but the poorest members of our society, who, like the poorest students, spend a greater proportion of their income on housing costs but have the least choice.
I should like the Minister to respond to three issues: the legal definition of a house in multiple occupation; the licensing of HMOs and other rented properties; and the enforcement of health and safety regulations for all student properties, including HMOs.
The present confusion about the legal definition of what comprises an HMO must be resolved. Section 345 of the Housing Act 1985 states that an HMO is
a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household.
Between 1969 and 1995, an HMO was deemed to include student houses, which traditionally account for 56 per cent. of student accommodation. However, the Court of Appeal in the Barnes v. Sheffield City Council judgment ruled against that assumption, and, in effect, withdrew enforcement protection for a large body of students.
Sheffield city council had ordered the owners of a terraced house occupied by five female students to install fire escapes and other fire precautions. The owners refused, arguing that their property was not an HMO, so the council had no powers to insist on the improvements. Despite the fact that the students pursued entirely separate life styles, the court decided that it was a single household and not a house of multiple occupancy, because the students shared the facilities, had signed similar tenancy agreements, shared responsibility for cleaning and did not have locks on their doors. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the vast majority of local authorities with large populations of students saw that judgment as an unscrupulous landlords' charter and roundly condemned it.

Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of Sheffield. Several thousand of my constituents are students who live in such accommodation. Does he share my view that a proper, enforceable system of licensing would benefit not only students, but the host community, which wants high-quality housing in the area, not unscrupulous landlords who allow housing to fall into disrepair?

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend echoes the comments made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). This issue is not just about students; it affects large areas, particularly the towns and cities with major student populations. Under the 1985 Act, local authorities can


have a registration scheme if they so wish. However, large areas are excluded from registration, even under the current legislation. That anomaly should be sorted out.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I appreciate my hon. Friend's raising of this issue. I would be interested to know whether he agrees with me that a fourth issue that should be tackled is the practice of universities that have irresponsibly encouraged more and more students to come to areas where they are located without having the proper housing resources and without the local authority or the community being able to absorb those students in suitable accommodation. Until that issue is addressed, we will be plagued by this problem across the nation.

Mr. Willis: I have tried not to get into that complex and difficult subject. My hon. Friend is right: the expansion of the student population in the past 10 years has overburdened some of our towns and cities. Universities have more often than not said that accommodation and the social well-being of students are not their responsibility. They are opting out of that responsibility, and that is a major problem.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: There is another widespread problem, which certainly affects Southampton. Institutes of higher education have attempted to build accommodation for students to take them out of the housing market, but they have done so on disadvantageous borrowing terms, with the result that the hall fees are high. Either students are being driven back into the private rented market, or universities and colleges are tempted to cut corners in order to meet the costs that they have themselves incurred.

Mr. Willis: Indeed, an enormous number of problems are arising. I know from a survey that I completed recently that one London university has refurbished a block principally to attract what I would call private sector guests during the summer, and now charges students £114 a week. I challenged that university: was it right for student accommodation to be treated in that way? I was simply told, "We have enough takers in London." I do not think that is the right attitude. Student accommodation is there to support students and their education.
The Barnes v. Sheffield City Council judgment was a landmark. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), a former housing spokesperson who is now the Minister for Energy and Industry, was quoted thus in the Yorkshire Post of 10 May 1995:
this has exposed a literally deadly loophole in the law".
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), then president of the National Union of Students, said:
This looks like a green light to treat students as second-class tenants".
How right they both were. Immediately, local authorities with large student populations saw an increase in lettings on a shared basis to evade health and safety regulations. In response to a recent survey by Shelter, Nottingham city council said:
Many landlords locally are very aware of the Barnes judgement. This is very worrying as it creates a 'sham' situation which is potentially dangerous to tenants".

Perhaps the most disturbing effect of the Barnes judgment, however, has been local authorities' reluctance to use their HMO powers to inspect shared houses or enforce standards because of their fear of losing their case in the courts. They have good reason: only last year, Islington council lost a similar case in the Rogers v. Islington Council judgment, although I am pleased to say that it is appealing that judgment.
Many tragedies have occurred because of the failure of licensing and regulation. In Australia, all properties available to let to non-related family members, whether in discrete units or as a household, must be licensed. Such a simplification of the law is required here: all properties offered to let should be subject to mandatory licensing and inspection. That would immediately remove the loopholes that currently allow unscrupulous landlords to avoid their responsibilities for health and safety, and would end the absurd situation in which shared houses are not covered by existing regulations. As in any other workplace, the landlord would be responsible in law to those who used his premises; and university accommodation, which is currently exempt from requirements for independent registration and inspection, would lose that exemption.
There is an urgent need to replace the cumbersome framework for regulating standards in the private and public rented sectors, but that cannot be done until we have an effective licensing system. I hope that is what the Government had in mind when they promised a consultation document on the shape of licensing earlier this year. Can the Minister assure us, without prejudicing the outcome of that document, that the consultation will be about all rented accommodation, not just existing HMOs? Can he assure us that the present system under which universities are exempt from local authority HMO registration requirements will be ended, and that the practice of self-regulation will also be abandoned? In short, can he assure us that all student accommodation will come into the same broad category as other similar rented accommodation, and that it will not be assumed that universities or colleges do things better?
Finally, may I plead with the Minister to simplify the whole regulation and inspection framework? Local authorities have powers of entry to registered properties, under part IV of the Housing Act 1985, to require works to make houses safe and fit for human habitation. The Health and Safety Executive has powers to enforce the requirements of the gas safety regulations, but has not enough resources to inspect adequately. Trading standards authorities have powers to enforce furniture and furnishings regulations, but have no powers of entry. It is small wonder that responsible landlords throw up their hands in horror, and irresponsible landlords hide behind the confusion.
Local authorities should act as one-stop shops to enforce all the regulations during a single inspection. That would cut costs, increase efficiency, build up relationships with landlords and, above all, ensure that tenants were fully protected.
I suspect that little separates the Minister and me in terms of our objectives for the protection of students and other members of the public. We look to him to end the confusion over HMOs, and to fully license and regulate all rented student properties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing the debate, and on using it to raise an extremely important subject. By happy coincidence, today's debate follows a debate in the other place, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was initiated by his noble Friend Lord Tope, and my noble Friend Lady Farrington responded.
The hon. Gentleman declared an interest: his son is a first-year student at Lancaster university. That has nudged me to declare a potential interest: my eldest daughter expects to go to university next year. The hon. Gentleman made a number of important points, as did several other hon. Members. I am glad that he was gracious enough to give way to his hon. Friends, and also to two of mine. I note the failure of any Conservative Members to attend this important debate.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government share his concerns, and are addressing them. I shall try to respond to his points in detail.
We are committed to introducing a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation, which play an important role in providing student accommodation. We recognise the risks and problems in that part of the private rented sector. The worst housing conditions are often found in such accommodation. HMOs can present a number of risks to those who live in them. As with other housing, there may be problems of structural instability, disrepair, damp or a lack of adequate facilities. The 1996 English house conditions survey found that just under 10 per cent. of private sector HMOs failed to meet the general housing fitness standard. The 1996 definition was more stringent than earlier definitions.
There are particular risks associated with multiple occupancy. For example, kitchen, washing and toilet facilities may be entirely inadequate for the number of occupants. Houses may be overcrowded. The English house conditions survey found that 40 per cent. of houses providing bedsit accommodation were unfit for the number of occupants. That is a stunning figure, and a clear indication of the problems of overcrowding.
Fire safety is a particular worry. Research by our Department shows that—as the hon. Gentleman said—in some types of HMO the risk of death by fire may be six times greater than that in comparable single-occupancy accommodation. That is particularly serious.
Given the obvious need for the problems to be tackled, the Government intend to consult on proposals for a national and mandatory HMO licensing scheme. We hope to issue our consultation paper early this year. The Government are determined to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from exploitation by unscrupulous or uncaring landlords. We aim to ensure that HMOs are safe, and provide acceptable living conditions.
We intend the new system to be comprehensive and effective. We especially want to avoid the ambiguities in definition, and the consequent enforcement difficulties, associated with existing HMO controls. At the same time, we recognise the need to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on good landlords who provide a proper standard of accommodation.
HMOs play an important role in providing housing for groups of people, including students, who may have difficulty finding alternative accommodation, so our

objective is to improve standards in HMOs, rather than to close them. Obviously, those in the worst condition may, in certain cases, require closure, but the objective is to raise standards, rather than to discourage HMOs, which, if well managed and maintained, can provide appropriate accommodation not just for students, but for other single people who are looking for such accommodation.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the case of Barnes v. Sheffield city council. We are well aware of the difficulties with the definition of a multi-occupied house, particularly in relation to shared houses of the type occupied by students. I find it difficult to understand how the Court of Appeal can have reached the conclusion that a property that is occupied by a significant number of independent students can be treated other than as a house in multiple occupation, but it is not for me to comment on the law. I can respond only to the situation that is created by the judgment.
We recognise that there is a problem; we are keen that it should be dealt with. We intend to adopt a more precise definition for the purposes of both the proposed licensing system and other HMO-specific controls.
Views on suitable alternatives and definitions will be sought in our forthcoming consultation paper on licensing. One option is to use a definition that is based on that currently used for licensing in Scotland. That would apply to all houses that are shared by members of more than two families, thereby overcoming the problem that presented itself in the case of Barnes v. Sheffield city council. There may be difficulties associated with that particular approach, so we are not recommending it, but we will put it forward as one option for consideration in the consultation. We recognise that the vast majority of houses that are shared by students would be covered by the Scottish definition.
We are not convinced of the case for licensing all the private rented sector. There are two principal reasons for that. Such a scheme could be unduly bureaucratic and would involve unnecessary visits to properties that are in perfectly good condition and well maintained. Equally, we would not wish to discourage the supply of rented accommodation with a system that appeared to be unduly restrictive. However, we are concerned at conditions in the lower end of the privately rented market. If existing voluntary arrangements and any new voluntary arrangements that develop over the next year or two in response to our concerns do not raise standards adequately over time, we will consider alternative options.
We need to consider carefully how HMO licensing might work and what standards should be achieved. We also need to consider the cost to landlords and to local authorities that will administer the system. We do not want to impose a regime that proves unworkable and that leads to many landlords withdrawing their properties from the market rather than bringing them up to acceptable standards.
The Government view licensing as the primary control mechanism for ensuring acceptable standards in HMOs. Therefore a wide range of issues affecting the health and safety of HMO residents will be addressed in the consultation paper. Licensing criteria will cover three main areas: the physical condition of the premises, their management and the fitness of the licensee. We want to set published standards that are proportionate to fire and other health and safety risks, and which will be


consistently enforced throughout the country. They will also need to be compatible with possible changes to the general housing fitness standard following the current review.
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, definitions must relate to the type of property and how the property is occupied, rather than to the type of tenant. I cannot therefore give him the assurance that all accommodation that is occupied by students will be covered. Nevertheless, we recognise that many students will occupy HMOs and accommodation that is likely to come within the definition of HMOs. We will set that out in the consultation paper.
Primary legislation will be required to introduce the scheme. The Government will legislate as soon as an opportunity becomes available.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inspection and enforcement arrangements. I can assure him that we want an effective enforcement regime that avoids conflict and overlap. Our consultation paper will examine the relationship between our proposed licensing regime and other present or proposed legislation that may apply to HMOs—for example, in respect of fire safety and gas appliances, both of which raise important issues.
While not prejudging the consultation, we will want to ensure that the respective expertise of the fire, health and safety and housing authorities is used to best effect. We envisage that local housing authorities will continue to be the first point of contact for licensable premises. We recognise the benefits of the existing one-stop shop approach that is provided to landlords by housing authorities.
I can also advise the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive, as part of its comprehensive review of gas safety, is considering alternative enforcement strategies and bodies. Currently, the HSE is the sole enforcing authority for gas safety legislation, although it works closely with local authorities.
The HSE review is considering, among other issues, whether local authority environmental health officers should undertake gas safety inspection and enforcement. I do not wish to prejudge the review, but it may make sense for gas safety work to be integrated into housing authority inspection of HMOs. The HSE review's recommendations should be available by the end of the current year.

Mr. Willis: Will the Minister deal with the responsibilities of trading standards departments for furnishings and fittings, particularly furniture, which have

to meet safety standards? Does he envisage that, particularly where we have two-tier authorities, with a district and a county having those responsibilities, environmental health departments will be able to take them on as well, so that we genuinely have a one-stop shop and, when an inspector goes to a property, he looks at everything from the gas appliance to the curtains and settee?

Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are keen to have a properly integrated approach that ensures the minimum duplication and overlap. He will understand that I cannot give a precise commitment in advance of the publication of the consultation paper, but I can assure him that we are looking to achieve that level of integration.
Local authorities have significant and wide-ranging powers to take action to ensure acceptable standards in HMOs. They can require landlords to carry out works if they consider that the HMO is not fit for the number of occupants on specified grounds—if there are inadequate kitchen, washing or toilet facilities, inadequate means of escape from fire, or other inadequate fire precautions. I accept that there may be definitional difficulties; we have touched on those in relation to the Barnes v. Sheffield city council case. However, in general, local authorities have powers that can help to tackle the problems. They can also require works to remedy management neglect, and can impose limits on the number of occupants.
Failure to carry out works is an offence. Authorities can do the work themselves and recover the cost, although I recognise that there is often anxiety that they may not be able to recover it. HMO managers also have a duty to maintain premises and certain installations, including gas appliances. Non-compliance is a criminal offence.
Local authorities have discretion to introduce HMO registration schemes. Those require HMO landlords to register properties that are covered by the scheme with the authority. Such schemes may have wider powers than general HMO legislation, and include the power to refuse or to revoke registration if acceptable standards are not met. We are encouraging local authorities to adopt registration schemes, using their existing HMO powers as an interim measure, pending introduction of the new mandatory national licensing system.
I have made clear the Government's commitment to tackling the problems in HMOs, which are used largely by students, as well as by other groups, and our commitment to introducing in the near future a full consultation on the proposals for an HMO licensing scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the Government take those issues seriously and are actively addressing them.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Llew Smith: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was shadow Health Secretary, she stated:
When the private sector is building, owning, managing and running a hospital it has been privatised".
I agree with that sentiment. Many organisations that I shall mention later in my speech have said that that position has been realised by the implementation of the private finance initiative, under which public facilities are owned and run by private-sector companies that either lease them back or charge the public authority for providing the service.
Some time ago, Unison, which is the largest public service trade union and has considerable expertise on the subject, warned that the PFI was the latest Conservative scheme for privatisation and argued:
Under the PFI the private sector pays for replacing or refurbishing public assets, such as computer systems or a new hospital, and is given a very long contract to operate the assets or to run the associated services and the jobs involved are transferred to the private company. The private sector recoups the money it has spent through a charge for the services it provides.
We have heard the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and of Unison, the major trade union within the public services. Will Hutton, the editor of The Observer, has done considerable research on the subject. He concluded that the
PFI is becoming the means of literally privatising the state
and called for
it to be scrapped".
So there is unity and agreement between my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, Unison, the editor of The Observer and me. That is quite an achievement on a Wednesday morning.
As someone who is neither old nor new Labour, but just Labour and who represents Blaenau Gwent, the birthplace of the national health service, I would have expected a Labour Government to scrap the PFI, which, understandably, was introduced by the Tory Government, who hated the idea of public service. Yet instead, the present Government are increasingly putting our future into the hands of PFIs.
Other Opposition parties also supported Labour's position in opposition and in government. Surely a Labour Government, whose party constitution describes itself as "Democratic Socialist", should value public services and seek to extend their role in society, recognising that they enhance life chances in communities such as mine.
If the Minister is not willing to accept the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, Unison, Will Hutton or me, perhaps he will accept the report of the Treasury task force on PFI, which states:
The PFI transforms Government Departments and Agencies from being owners and operators of assets into purchasers of services from the private sector. PFI firms become long term providers of services rather than simply upfront asset builders, combining the responsibilities of designing, building, financing and operating the assets in order to deliver the services demanded by the public sector.

Given the views of such a wide group of people and organisations, it is not surprising that the Trades Union Congress also condemned PFI in principle, instructing
the General Council to campaign for the ending of PFI … and to press the Government to reinstate proper capital funding to ensure the future infrastructure of the public services in a way that does not damage jobs and services.
Indeed, I remember a Labour policy document in 1995 describing PFIs as "creeping privatisation" and, as always, I support the position of my party. However, now it appears that the PFI is being presented as some kind of miracle cure to overcome the problems of financing our public services.
Peter Riplett, former group economist of Tarmac and hardly a member of the hard left, or even the campaign group, recognised that
the initiative will cost taxpayers much more in the long term than the traditional system of paying for the public investment, either out of current tax revenues or from borrowing".
The reason is obvious. The cost of obtaining the funds from the private sector will not be as low as the Government could borrow from the national loan fund which comes with Government guarantees, is backed by tax revenues and borrowing and is inevitably and intuitively the cheapest way of raising funds.
Once again, if the Minister rejects my opinion and that of Peter Riplett, perhaps he will listen to Graham Watts of the Construction Industry Council, who estimated that an average hospital project could cost the final selected bidder as much as 4.3 per cent. of the total project value. As I said, that is because it costs far more for the private sector than for the public sector to borrow money because of higher interest rates and the need to make a higher rate of return.
The financing of the PFI can also have serious implications for public bodies such as local authorities. That was recognised in the Audit Commission report entitled "Taking the Initiative—A framework for purchasing under the Private Finance Initiative". It discusses the long period of contract in PFI on public bodies and argues that it could
restrict the future flexibility of the body to determine the way the services are provided".
It continues:
Not only is this commitment likely to limit the ability to switch resources in the future but, in the event of the need to cut spending, the PFI contract payment is likely to be protected from any cutbacks. The corollary is that non-PFI expenditure may have to carry proportionately deeper cuts.
Putting aside all those criticisms, we are expected to believe that the PFI was intended to be additional to public provisions, yet the Tory Government left us in no doubt that they intended to substitute for publicly financed capital expenditure, enabling them to cut the capital budget.
It is not surprising that the Treasury Committee concluded:
In our view the PFI is now being treated by the Government as substantial. It is enabling the Government to cut capital budgets in future plans.
As that was the conclusion of the Treasury Committee in respect of the Tory Government, how could the position be different under the present Government, who for their first two years in office have retained the same public expenditure plans?
Let us be in no doubt that the PFI is not providing a public service; it is about making money and profits by cutting the service provided or the costs involved. For example, eventually fewer staff are employed—on inferior pay and conditions. New staff are not protected by the agreements that applied previously.
Allyson Pollock, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, states that her research shows that PFI
schemes are characterised by a marked reduction in available bed capacity of about 25 to 30 per cent.
An example of the deterioration in service was given by Will Hutton, who stated in The Observer:
PFI hospitals have adopted very high throughput ratios to compensate for their dramatic bed reductions that imply no spare capacity whatsoever.
The Welsh Institute for Social Health and Care recently produced a preliminary examination of three PFI projects in Wales including the new hospital at Mount Pleasant, Chepstow, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). It stated that a private consortium was chosen to design and build the facility on the sight of the former Mount Pleasant hospital. The trust granted the consortium a peppercorn lease for the land and paid an advance capital sum of £3.2 million to the consortium in order to reduce the annual revenue cost of renting the facility. Without that capital advance, the annual charge would have been £1.2 million. With the advance, the consortium will receive £756,000 per annum, to make the facility available.
The report went on to say that, as part of the overall deal, the NHS was able to release land—27 acres in all—at St. Lawrence hospital and at Mount Pleasant hospital. By selling the land directly on the open market, the NHS was able to make £440,000 per acre. Consequently, that cash was available to the national health service.
The report said that the outline building case for the new build at Mount Pleasant estimated that the cost would be £13.7 million to provide an 84-bed unit with minor treatment, X-ray, community deal and out-patient facilities. Thus—this is the important point—the income from the land sold, which was equivalent to £11.8 million of the assumed capital cost of the public sector comparator, would have financed 86 per cent. of the new build cost if the trust had been allowed to retain it.
The scheme therefore did not have to take the PFI route to acquire most of the necessary capital funds, as the land equity was almost sufficient to provide them. Moreover, under the rules currently operating in the national health service, most of the income—less the £3.2 million advance payment—was forwarded to the Welsh Office, presumably to be used in other parts of the NHS. The Welsh Office should examine that practice, and consider changing it.
Before entering the Chamber today, I was speaking to a fellow hon. Member, who approached me and said that a school in his constituency was being built under the PFI. He said that the project's legal costs were about £45,000. His community did not benefit from that money, although I suppose that the lawyers did. The people in his community lost a benefit, as two teachers could have been employed with that £45,000. The Labour Government—who have a different set of priorities from the previous

Government—must appreciate that £45,000 spent on two teachers is better than the same sum paid out to a set of lawyers.
Loss of accountability is another problem with the PFI. Often, information on PFIs is withheld because of excuses of commercial confidentiality. We all know that commercial confidentiality is often used as an excuse in preventing the public from finding out what is happening in certain areas.
If there is a problem with a PFI contract, who will be responsible for dealing with it, especially if the firm originally involved in the project and holding the equity is sold on to another company? Accountability is affected also if a council's cash and other assets are transferred to a company gaining control of a PFI project. For how long will contracts be monitored, especially if a council has lost many of its own staff to the company taking over a PFI?
Why have successive Governments been so eager to support the PFI? Unison and the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care agree that there are two main reasons for the support. The first is the requirement to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, so that we can meet the Maastricht criteria. Governments hope that the PFI will remove investment from the public sector balance sheet. Therefore, as a community, we are expected to forgo services so that we may fulfil the Maastricht criteria. It is therefore not surprising that some hon. Members continue to oppose Britain's entry into the single currency.
The second reason for Governments' support of the PFI is their desire to introduce market-type incentives into public services, as a means of improving productivity. Most people welcome improved productivity. However, the type of productivity increases that I have mentioned today and that has been documented by many researchers in hospitals and other establishments receiving PFI funding has been achieved only to the detriment of the person—the patient, for example—using the service.
I should like to think that all the concerns expressed by the organisations that I have mentioned today are unfounded, but I do not believe that they are. My position is identical to the position taken by Labour in 1995, when we said that the PFI was equivalent to "creeping privatisation". I therefore support the TUC's campaign to end the PFI.
I want a Labour Government who defend public services and believe in the concept of service. Public services enhance the life chances of our communities, and not the life chances of a few people who think of public service as a way of making money—profits—at the community's expense. We are asking the Government to put people before profit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for raising an important subject, and for doing so with his customary good humour and gentle use of irony. His speech was not only well researched but heartfelt. I also welcome the opportunity of replying to the debate, as it gives me a chance to outline the Government's progress on the private finance initiative, our further plans for its reform, and our wider commitment to developing public-private partnerships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said in his speech that he is particularly concerned about the effect and use of the PFI in the health sector. I know that he will not object—and I trust that you will not, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if I use this opportunity, as a Health Minister, to announce that I am today establishing a group under the chairmanship of Professor Ian Cameron, provost and vice-chancellor of the university of Wales college of medicine, to examine meningococcal infection in Wales.
The chief medical officer in Wales will nominate individuals with appropriate experience and knowledge to serve in the group, which the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation will be asked to join. I shall be asking Professor Cameron to report to me on the matter as soon as possible.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make that announcement.
Since the Government were elected to office, in May 1997, we have revitalised the PFI, so that we can now rightly say that it is a key tool in helping to provide effective and good-value public services. Since the general election, we have signed £4 billion-worth of PFI deals and have made the PFI work in sectors, such as health, in which it had not worked before.
We estimate that, by the end of 1999, private sector investment in PFI projects will account for about 14 per cent. of overall public sector investment. Accompanying the turnaround has been an upsurge in confidence, both in the public and private sectors, that the PFI can deliver the goods. We are now seeing its benefits spread to other parts of the public service, such as our schools.
The Government are working closely with local government to use the PFI to improve public services. The Welsh Office has made PFI credits available, amounting to £150 million, to enable our six local authority pathfinder schemes to begin. The schemes were chosen to provide templates for future projects in Wales, and we anticipate that the first deals will be signed in the next few months. Additionally, we have recently announced another £120 million of credit that will be made available, and have invited Welsh local authorities to make proposals on their next wave of PFI projects.
The transport sector led the way in the PFI. It is worth remembering that, a decade ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was first in proposing the type of public-private partnership arrangements that are now delivering the goods in transport. Schemes in progress include the chunnel high-speed rail link and dualling of the A55 across Anglesey. The Government are proud of our record on PFI, and we have been able to get it moving.
When we came to office, we were prepared to take tough decisions. For instance, in the NHS in England, we established a system to prioritise PFI projects to break the logjam that had been allowed to build up. Health service need now dictates which PFI projects get the go-ahead and, to date, 25 new hospital developments have been given the green light as part of the biggest hospital programme in the history of the NHS. Work on nine is already under way.
In Wales, we have made significant progress in getting PFI in health off the ground. Deals with a capital value of over £30 million have now been signed for projects ranging from staff residences and clinical waste disposal through to operating theatres and renal units.
We are particularly proud that, through the PFI, the people of Chepstow will soon benefit from a new, purpose-built community hospital, replacing old, out-dated and worn-out accommodation.

Mr. Huw Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) for expressing the reservations that many people have had about PFI, and which some of us had when Labour was in opposition. Will my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the people of Chepstow, having seen delay after delay, are grateful that the Government are ensuring that the problems associated with PFI under the previous Government have been resolved to some degree, and that there will be a new hospital in Chepstow? Will he assure us that PFI will not be associated with a significant—or minor—deterioration in the pay and conditions of staff working in hospitals?

Mr. Jones: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks. My father is a constituent of his and lives near the hospital site, and I know that the people of Chepstow have waited too long for the hospital to be developed. I can assure him that staff will be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE—to safeguard their interests in any transfer of employment.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Minister accept that the question is not whether there should be a new hospital in Chepstow? Obviously, we all welcome that. The question is whether the hospital should be funded by public money or by PFI. Can the Minister explain why it needed to be a PFI project when 86 per cent. of the money could have been raised from the sale of the land? Is he saying that the conditions of staff in the long term will be protected, and that new staff will receive similar protection? Does he accept that this is privatisation of public services—a point we accepted as a party in 1995?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend made a number of those points in his speech, and I intend to address them in my speech if I am able to move on. The Chepstow PFI project was judged to be value for money with the land value included, and the treatment of the land in the deal was cleared by the Treasury.
The University hospital of Wales has been quick to grasp the opportunities that partnership can offer. Patients, visitors and staff are able to get on to the site and park much more easily thanks to a multi-storey car park and access road constructed through the PFI. A new entrance, concourse and reception area—again, built through the PFI—has improved enormously the environment and facilities for all users of the site, and has corrected long-standing problems dating back to the original design of the hospital.
The PFI is also helping the NHS to become increasingly energy-efficient. A significant number of NHS trusts are now entering into energy management contracts with specialist service providers and obtaining substantial savings which can then be reinvested in direct patient care. These important and valuable developments would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve without partnership under PFI, and would have required us to divert scarce resources away from other health priorities.
The previous Administration, under the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), actually took capital money away from the NHS in Wales and left us a legacy of aging and poorly equipped hospitals. We are working hard to restore our capacity to fund new capital developments in those cases where the PFI cannot offer a solution. However, as the schemes prove, the PFI can provide real and valuable alternatives and can offer excellent value for money. It also enables us to address urgent priorities now, rather than have important schemes wait until new public funds can be found.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jones: No, I will not give way. I have only another five minutes to complete my speech.
For the future, negotiations are now well advanced with private sector partners on proposals to provide new hospitals to serve Neath and Port Talbot, and in western Cardiff. Elsewhere in Wales, the national health service continues to explore the potential for the PFI to help deliver new buildings and high-quality services.
We have been able to make PFI work because we have been prepared to take head-on some of the logistical problems that bedevilled PFI in the past. One of our first actions was to appoint Sir Malcolm Bates to review the PFI process. He did an excellent job in analysing problems and, more importantly, finding solutions. Since Sir Malcolm reported, we have fully implemented all of his recommendations.
In addition, we have been able to make PFI work because we have recognised the importance of getting the interests of staff right when evaluating bids and contracts. Openness between bidders, trade unions and staff is an

essential part of the PFI. PFI is not a secret process. That is why we have published guidelines on the consultation of staff and other interested bodies, as well as requiring the publication of key business cases and PFI documents.

Mr. Llew Smith: Answer the question, Jon.

Mr. Jones: Perhaps I am not answering the question in the way that my hon. Friend would like. If my hon. Friend is ideologically opposed to the whole concept of PFI, there is nothing that I, as a Minister, can say that will satisfy him. The Government have ensured that the maximum transparency and fairness is incorporated into the way in which the negotiations take place.
There is always room for improvement, and the Government recognise that. We will be taking action to make PFI deals easier to complete. We are now looking at how to streamline the process of putting a PFI deal together. There is little doubt that both time and money can be saved by having standard template contracts. We published draft guidance on standard model clauses this month. Next month, we will publish guidance on accounting treatment that will help determine the level of risk transfer that will deliver best value for money.
We have also asked Sir Malcolm Bates to take a second look at the PFI—and public-private partnerships more generally—to see how the Government can further refine our approach. That is because each project is different. That fact is a reflection of the different problems and priorities in different settings.
We want to improve public services, to get better value for money, to provide incentives for effective business management, to correct underinvestment, and to optimise capital investment flow. That diversity calls for the development of a new approach to enable the public and private sectors to work together. The Government will be taking a lead in that process in the months ahead.

Rural Pharmacies (Mid-Norfolk)

Mr. Keith Simpson: This subject has been brought to my attention by a wide variety of constituents: doctors, pharmacists, people in the health authority and, of course, members of the public. It is an issue not just in my constituency and the rest of Norfolk—I acknowledge the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson); it has been brought to the attention of many hon. Members with rural constituencies.
The question of dispensing doctors and pharmacists has for many years aroused heated debate both between the two professions and within each of them. My purpose in raising the subject is not to take sides; I believe that it would be a very foolish politician who did so, and I can see that the Minister agrees. I want to bring to the Minister's attention the concerns of my constituents who, as patients, are rightly worried, and to find out whether he—a recently appointed Minister in a relatively new Government—has any intention of either amending the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 or using his good offices to help to resolve a dispute that has been rumbling on for years, if not decades.
I recognise that, for some time, the General Practitioners Committee and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee have been trying to resolve areas of dispute. I hope that what is said here will be constructive and not impede those talks. It has been a principle since the health service was established that it is for doctors to prescribe and pharmacists to dispense, although that has often been more in principle than in practice; in theory, patients get the benefit of the expertise of both professions.
In certain circumstances, doctors are permitted to provide pharmaceutical services for their patients rather than referring them to a pharmacist. The relevant legislation is in regulations 19 to 21 of the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992. The first circumstance in which that applies is when the patient lives in what is called a controlled locality—an area designated as rural by the local health authority—and is more than one mile from the pharmacy. In that case, the general practitioner can apply for outline consent. The regulations deal with how areas are designated as rural by the health authority and make provision for the local medical or pharmaceutical committee to appeal against the authority's decision.
The second circumstance is when patients satisfy their health authority that they would have serious difficulty obtaining the drugs or appliances from a pharmacy
by reason of distance or inadequacy of means of communication".
In that case, the regulations do not specify what distance would constitute serious difficulty, so the discretion is left to the health authority.
Because GPs in rural areas often depend on their dispensing for a significant part of their income, in support of their practice, it clearly has been and will continue to be a matter of grave concern to them if a pharmacist applies to open a pharmacy in their area. We should all be aware of that fact, which has been brought home to me by several doctors in my constituency. It is undoubtedly a crucial factor, and we should not duck it.
When it appears that a change is to be made to a doctor's dispensary, there is great upset and resentment among patients, many of whom are elderly, invalids or with limited transport. I have heard about that at at least one public meeting, and it is a matter of heartfelt concern to many patients.

Mr. Robert Jackson: There is a similar problem in Shrivenham in my constituency. The arrangements seem to leave everyone dissatisfied. The pharmacists do not have commercial freedom and doctors and their patients—my constituents—have found the procedure for appeal very remote. I strongly support my hon. Friend's efforts to get the matter reviewed.

Mr. Simpson: I thank my hon. Friend; he and I had discussions on this matter with the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) several weeks ago.
My constituency fulfils many of the main criteria for a rural constituency. It is 60 miles wide and 20 miles deep, resting like a large banana astride Norwich, with four main towns—Dereham is the largest, with 16,000 inhabitants, and Reepham, where I live, the smallest, with 3,000—and many villages and hamlets. There is no centre to my constituency except me.
Mid-Norfolk forms part of East Norfolk health authority, which has kindly provided me with up-to-date statistics for the whole area, but I suspect that the profile can be applied more narrowly to my constituency. The statistics give us a framework on which to work. As at 31 January, there were 104 pharmacies in contract with Norfolk Health, of which 56 are branches of a national chain, 12 branches of a local chain, 32 independent and four co-owned by GPs; 39 are located in towns or city centres, 29 in local shopping or residential areas, 19 in village centres, 10 in or adjacent to GP surgeries and seven in supermarkets.
There are 87 medical practices in contract with Norfolk Health, of which 42, or 48 per cent., are dispensing practices. That is a high and significant percentage. There are 636,477 patients—at least, there were last night—registered with Norfolk Health medical practices, of whom 141,554, or 22 per cent., receive a dispensing service. Nearly all those are in the rural area.
How can we help to resolve what has been in many, but not all, cases a dispute between dispensing doctors and pharmacists? Frankly, successive Health Ministers, aware of the potential minefield, have clung to the regulations and, understandably, not wanted to get directly involved. I consulted a former Health Minister last night, who said, "If only you had spoken to me earlier; I would have suggested that you did not raise this in an Adjournment debate. It is a minefield." Be that as it may, I have done so willingly.
The Minister's immediate predecessor, now elevated as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, where he will undoubtedly take a different view of health expenditure, wrote to me on 16 November 1997, in reply to points raised by a constituent of mine about the possible loss of a dispensary in one of our rural surgeries. He said:
Ministers are aware of the complex issues surrounding rural dispensing and of how strongly local communities feel about the provision of pharmaceutical services in these areas. Decisions on applications to dispense under the NHS in rural areas are made by the local health authority, and an appeal by the Family Health


Services Appeal Authority, under regulations. These regulations were developed after many years of dispute and argument between the medical and pharmaceutical professions.
You will appreciate that Ministers will be very wary of making any changes to the regulations that could potentially usher in a further period of inter-professional disharmony"—
a marvellous civil service phrase—
similar to that which was prevalent in the past.

Mr. David Prior: Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge number of applications for new supermarkets in both his constituency and mine is likely to increase the disharmony, as the traditional business done by pharmacists comes under increasing pressure?

Mr. Simpson: That is a powerful point. Such competition will indeed bring even more disharmony.
The highly emotive issue of dispensing doctors and pharmacists is, I believe, primarily about public perceptions, especially in rural areas, where many patients cannot recall receiving the service other than at their local surgery. It is a question of the provision of the best possible medical support for patients. It is also about money, and we should not duck that. It involves not only profit and loss for doctors and pharmacists but the NHS budget. It is something for which taxpayers should be aware they are all paying.
Finally, all involved—the Department of Health, health authorities, doctors and pharmacists—need to recognise that they provide a service to the public, who must come first, whatever the professionals' strong feelings. However, I do not underestimate the fact that doctors and pharmacists aim to provide the very best medical cover and support.
I conclude where I began—on, I hope, a constructive note. The issue has aroused interest and passion in my constituency, in other rural constituencies—as my hon. Friends the Members for Wantage and for North Norfolk mentioned—and on both sides of the House. I hope that the General Practitioners Committee and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, which will be tackling the problem, will take note of this debate and will take heart from the fact that Members of Parliament, speaking on behalf of their constituents, desire that a real effort be made to solve the problem.
The Minister has a responsibility—first, through his guardianship of the regulations and, secondly, through his ability to use his good offices—to further the negotiations between two highly respected professional bodies which may soon approach him with, we hope, constructive ideas on how best to take the matter forward. Success will benefit my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this debate and thank him for the constructive way in which he asked his questions and acknowledged some of the difficulties involved. As he said, I am relatively new to my job, and Adjournment debates perhaps have the effect of drawing to my attention some of the particular, but none the less

important, nooks and crannies of the national health service and the way in which we deliver our primary care services.
General practitioners and community pharmacies make a vital contribution to primary care in rural areas, and to the national health service in general. Most people recognise that the best primary care is provided when the skills of all professionals—GPs, pharmacists, nurses and others—are deployed together as part of a co-ordinated, seamless service which focuses on patients, not on organisations or administrative structures.
High-quality primary care is central to our agenda for the new NHS. That is as true for country areas as it for towns and cities. Our vision of the NHS is inclusive—we want the highest possible standards of quality and efficiency throughout the country.
Rural areas are relatively well provided with GPs. They tend to have lower morbidity than urban areas, and rather more GPs on a weighted capitation basis. The reimbursement of surgery premises costs and some staff costs means that there is no disincentive to GPs to practise in expensive areas. Also, specific elements in the GP pay system recognise the additional costs of providing family doctor services in rural areas. Chief among them are the rural practice payment schemes. There are other forms of assistance for rural GPs. Isolated single-handed doctors can benefit from an allowance that helps them meet the cost of employing a locum while they are on training courses, and there is also an allowance to help single-handed GPs to employ an associate doctor.
Community pharmacies are an equally important part of the NHS primary care network. Pharmacies do more than dispense medicines; they provide a source of easily accessible advice on a range of health and health care matters; they sell a range of over-the-counter medicines to help people self-medicate and look after their families; and they provide a source of expertise on prescription medicines, both for patients and for local prescribers.
There are nearly 9,800 NHS community pharmacies in England, a number that has stayed more or less steady for several years. Around 250 of those, including many in rural areas, take advantage of the essential small pharmacies scheme, which ensures a minimum level of NHS income for pharmacies that provide a valuable service but might not otherwise be viable.
General health service policy is that doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. Wherever possible, the aim is for patients to have the benefit of the expertise and services of doctors and pharmacists. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk acknowledged, this has been true since the inception of the national health service.
However, in rural areas where a pharmacy would not be viable, GPs may be required or permitted to dispense. About 16 per cent. of all GPs in England—around half those in East Norfolk health authority—dispense to around 3.2 million patients between them. Naturally, dispensing doctors are mainly concentrated in rural or semi-rural health authority areas.
In general, GPs are allowed to dispense only to patients who live in rural areas and more than one mile from the nearest pharmacy. Therefore, if a pharmacy opens locally, GPs stop dispensing for some or all of their patients.
Pharmacies are not generally allowed to open in rural areas if the health authority is convinced that their doing so would prejudice the local provision of general medical


services. This is commonly known as the prejudice test. Similarly, GPs cannot acquire new dispensing rights if that would prejudice existing NHS pharmacy services. The aim is to make sure that changes in dispensing do not destabilise existing, necessary patient services. In both cases, where applications are granted, the health authority can impose transitional arrangements, requiring GPs gradually to increase or reduce the number of their dispensing patients. The regulations are designed to ensure that these important decisions are taken openly and fairly.
Often, the health authority will hold a full oral hearing to ensure that the parties have a chance to make their case. The rules ensure that no one directly involved in either GP or pharmacy services can take part in the decision. There are appeals at each stage to the Family Health Services Appeals Authority, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The number of applications with which English health authorities deal under the pharmaceutical services regulations fluctuates but, in the six months to September 1998, 720 applications were received—an average of about seven per health authority. More than half were for minor relocations or change of ownership; only 61 related to rural areas.
Health authorities consider applications within the framework of the regulations, which are intended to ensure that, where possible, communities benefit from both GP and pharmacy services. In doing so, they are required to take account of all relevant factors, and to consult local community health councils, as well as local GPs, pharmacists and their representatives. Community health councils represent the interests of local patients.
As I said, local primary care is most comprehensive where communities can be served by family doctors and community pharmacists. Of course, there are some rural areas where a pharmacy may simply not be viable. In those cases, GPs provide a valuable extra service by dispensing medicines themselves. That is a service that we greatly appreciate, and for which additional fees and allowances are paid.
Dispensing by GPs is essential if people in sparsely populated rural areas are to be able to get their medicines without difficulty. I am sure that dispensing doctors take very seriously the extra responsibility that that carries, and I know that their services are generally much appreciated by their patients. However, dispensing by doctors rather than pharmacists is, and has always been, a pragmatic response to the special circumstances of rural areas. It has not been promoted as an equal and rival model of pharmaceutical services.
When a new pharmacy opens in a rural area, the effect is to widen the professional expertise available to the local community, but I recognise that decisions about the opening of new pharmacies in areas currently served by dispensing doctors can become the source of great local controversy.
As I explained, decisions on individual applications are made by health authorities in accordance with regulations and after consultation with various local interests. On appeal, applications are decided by the Family Health Services Appeals Authority.

Mr. Robert Jackson: That was a particularly difficult issue for my constituents at Shrivenham, who felt that the

appeal procedure was extremely remote and inaccessible and did not pay sufficient attention to them. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not familiar with that particular case. The system is designed to ensure, by virtue of the range of bodies and organisations consulted—including community health councils—that patients' views are adequately heard. If the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to my attention elements of his own local experience, perhaps by letter, I should be more than happy to look into the way in which the system operates. However, it would be going too far today to anticipate any possible changes.
In general, I must say that it is a great shame that disputes over dispensing rights too often become bitter and pit professionals against each other, when we want them to co-operate for the benefit of patients. I know that there are people who feel that disputes are in part caused by deficiencies in the existing regulations.
Pharmacists, for example, often say that they do not understand why the regulations can lead to GP practices in the centre of small towns operating a dispensary in competition—as they see it—with a nearby pharmacy. They point out that that pharmacy might even be located next door to the surgery. I am told that that is generally known as the market towns issue.
On the other hand, GPs have asked why different rules apply when a pharmacy already operating in a health authority's area applies to open a new branch in a rural area. In particular, they have asked why, in such cases, pharmacy applicants do not have to pass the so-called prejudice test.
I know of no evidence that suggests that the rules operate in a way that prevents patients from getting access to the medicines that they need. Indeed, the regulations are designed precisely to ensure that change is managed in a sensible way, without putting necessary services at risk. I agree, however, that it would be desirable if improvements could be made so that there are fewer disputes in future. Reducing the number of disputes can only be good news for patients.
However, the House will understand that, like many Ministers before me, I am reluctant to appear to intervene on one side or the other in the debate over the minute detail of rural dispensing rules. That reluctance stems from a fear of stirring up yet more wasteful dispute. I say "wasteful", because the long and sometimes bitter history of dispute between the professions over this issue can have done nothing to promote the climate of co-operation and collaboration that is necessary if primary care services are to deliver the best for their patients.
My predecessors have said to both professions that we will consider sympathetically any joint proposals that they bring to us for tidying up the regulations—provided, of course, that any changes proposed are in patients' best interests. I am happy to repeat that offer today.
Indeed, I believe that, over the past year or so, there have been increasingly encouraging signs that the leaders of the two professions are beginning to work more closely together on many issues. I am told that, in the East Norfolk health authority area, relations between the professions are generally close and fruitful. Members of both professions have been involved in the development of a successful local health care guide, as part of the


health authority's charter mark winning commitment to providing people with high-quality information about local NHS services.
Good relations between the professions are very much to be welcomed. Partnership is one of the four key themes in our vision for a new, modern and dependable national health service. It underpins excellence, efficiency and performance. We took office determined to get rid of the divisiveness of the old national health service and its internal market. Collaboration, not competition, is the key to improving patient care. By implementing our vision of the new national health service, we are breaking down barriers that artificially divide those who need to work together for the health and well-being of local communities.
The national health service, local authorities and local communities are now discussing the first health improvement programmes—real strategies for local health. Our programme will improve services throughout the country, for people living in rural areas as much as those in towns and cities. By the year 2000, everyone in England will have access to the NHS Direct 24-hour nurse

advice line. In hospital, all people with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GPs deciding that they need to be seen urgently. That target will be achieved by April 1999 for suspected breast cancer, and by 2000 for other cancers.
We have backed up our ambitious programme with the biggest-ever increase in resources for the national health service—an average of 4.5 per cent. over the next three years. Our vision extends equally to community pharmacy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he will be publishing a strategy document on ways of exploiting more fully the potential for community pharmacy to contribute to better care, close to people's homes.
That strategy document, like our entire vision for the national health service, will be about harnessing individuals' skills within a context of ever-greater co-operation and shared endeavour. That, surely, is where we should be focusing our energies. Division and dispute belong to the old NHS.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

On-line Government Services

Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the target of making 25 per cent. of government services available on-line by 2001. [68643]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We intend to publish information about departmental performance every six months, beginning in May 1999. Last year, we set a target for 25 per cent. of services to be electronically deliverable by 2002.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and the encouraging news of future publication of departmental performance. Does he acknowledge that many services that people use are delivered by local government and local national health service facilities, rather than directly by central Government agencies? What targets have he and his ministerial colleagues agreed on the contribution that local government and the NHS can make to the achievement of on-line Government services?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are looking at targets at the moment. The next list will not be available until May, although we recognise in our target expectation that the vast majority of services are provided not by central Government agencies, but by local authorities and the NHS. The strategy for dealing with those will be published in the spring in the White Paper on better government.

Government (Modernisation)

Dr. Tony Wright: When he expects to publish the White Paper on the modernisation of government. [68644]

Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will report on progress in preparing the better government White Paper. [68649]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We will publish a White Paper in the spring, setting out our proposals for more strategic policy making and simpler, more effective and responsive public services.

Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Modernisation is the hallmark of this Government, and must apply to all government. That means that people should have access to public services that they find easy to use, that operate efficiently and

which put things right quickly when they go wrong. Will he assure the House that the forthcoming White Paper will deliver that?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The three aims that he has mentioned will be the objectives of our White Paper.

Mr. Chope: Is not the better government White Paper just another of this Government's public relations stunts? Are not public services declining? If that is not true, why have the Government just published a 60-page document entitled, "Public Relations Toolkit for Employers", which invites small businesses to give third-party endorsement to failed Government policies? How much did that document cost? When will the Government follow the advice given on page 17—it will interest you, Madam Speaker—to "Answer the question succinctly", and "don't be evasive"?

Dr. Cunningham: After such a long, rambling and incoherent question, the hon. Gentleman is the last one to talk about stunts. He knows all about them. I have no doubt that all the users of the national health service, in which we intend to invest £21 billion extra, and all the users of the education service, in which we will invest £19 billion extra, will note his disparaging remarks about public services.

Ms Margaret Moran: On the publication of the White Paper on modernisation of government, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we encourage service users to take the opportunities offered by new technology to provide regular feedback, so that we can measure the improving quality of public services? Such improvement is a clear objective of the Government, and one on which the previous Administration were a dire failure.

Dr. Cunningham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pioneering work in that connection when she was leader of Lewisham borough council. We shall set ourselves a target of delivering 25 per cent. of Government services through information technology by 2002. We want those services to be available not only easily but, where possible, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I notice that, by grouping the questions, the right hon. Gentleman is equating modern with better, but is it either modern or better for a Government to treat a Select Committee of the House as disdainfully as the Government have in the past 24 hours? What place do parliamentary democracy and the work of our Select Committees have in the right hon. Gentleman's ideal of modern government?

Dr. Cunningham: I have always, personally, had a very high regard for the Select Committees of the House. I was a member of a Select Committee of the House for six years, and in roughly one year as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I agreed to appear before the Select Committee on Agriculture four times. My appearance on the fourth occasion was obviated by my appointment to my present responsibilities.
We should pay very high regard to the work of Select Committees of the House and their reports, but that does not mean that we should conclude that Governments are always bound to agree with them.

Social Exclusion Unit

Mr. Robin Corbett: If he will list the main priorities of the social exclusion unit for the current year. [68645]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The unit will continue to lead the co-ordination of policy development across Whitehall on neighbourhood renewal. It will produce two new reports to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on teenage parents and on 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome and encourage the work that the unit is doing on truancy and school exclusion, and now with teenage parents. The efforts of thousands of my constituents to rebuild their lives, homes and community through the Castle Vale housing action trust are being harmed by the activities of a handful of eight to 14-year-old youngsters who feel socially excluded. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the efforts of the trust, Castle Vale school, the police and community groups to work together to offer those young people better hope for their lives, in a great city where they are lucky to live?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will endorse that work. My hon. Friend's comments about the work of the social exclusion unit will be widely welcomed by the people who work for it. It is worth pointing out to the House that, as a result of their work, the Government have provided an extra £1.8 billion so far, targeted at schemes that featured in the unit's report, including those such as sure start, which is aimed at helping children who face the very risks that my hon. Friend has just described.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that Home Start is one of the most effective and sensitive of the voluntary organisations which are helping to tackle social exclusion? Will he ask the social exclusion unit expressly to examine the difficulties in Farncombe, in Godalming? Is it his Government's view that disadvantage, isolation and deprivation do not occur in relatively prosperous counties? Such is the effect of the spending decisions on Surrey's health and social services that it is inconceivable that money will be found to start any new projects; indeed, the small amount of joint finance funding already available will have to be withdrawn. Will the right hon. Gentleman expressly ask the social exclusion unit to study what is happening in the home counties and the suffering experienced there?

Dr. Cunningham: First, I pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Lady has always done in the voluntary sector through her long and effective association with voluntary work. I cannot comment on the organisation that she mentioned, but I am sure that it is, as she says, worthy of support. As for the social exclusion unit considering specific difficulties rather than general issues, that is not really within its remit, but I undertake to look carefully at what the right hon. Lady has said and to see how I can draw that to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key role for the social

exclusion unit must be to continue to develop policies across government that support social entrepreneurs, the people who provide the drive behind credit unions, community businesses and other forms of social enterprise? Will my right hon. Friend further encourage the social exclusion unit to promote more partnerships between mainstream banks and social enterprises to bring the hard-headed financial skills of the private sector to our work on neighbourhood renewal?

Dr.Cunningham: Although my hon. Friend makes an important point, it is not currently within the work programme of the social exclusion unit. However, he is right to draw attention to the important work of credit unions and co-operative organisations. Again, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has responsibility for such matters.

Annual Government Report

Mr. Simon Hughes: Who will be responsible for the preparation of this year's annual Government report. [68646]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Civil servants.

Mr. Hughes: That is the answer that I expected.
Given that Alastair Campbell and his colleagues in the Downing street communications unit are classed as civil servants, does not the Minister accept that if the Government's annual report—a concept that is welcome—is to have any objective credibility, it should be compiled by the National Audit Office or an independent statistical office, and not by Government spin doctors?

Mr. Kilfoyle: According to the hon. Gentleman's own words, civil servants wrote last year's annual report. Civil servants will continue to write the annual report, which is a first. It is the first time that a Government have set out what they have done, why they have done it and what they intend to do. Incidentally, it is the first time that a Government have pointed out where they have made mistakes. We have informed people at all levels and we shall continue to do so. I very much look forward to the next publication in July.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When Liberal Democrat Members are trotting up Whitehall and going through the big gates into Downing street more often than any of us Labour Back Benchers, will my hon. Friend explain why is it that those ragtag and bobtails cannot get the information while they are stuck in there, instead of wasting the time of the House?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is one of those at odds with the approach that his leader has taken. Perhaps they are not speaking to each other on these matters.

Sir George Young: If we are to have another annual report produced at taxpayers'


expense, may we have an assurance that, unlike last year's report, the Government will not airbrush out of it any reference to any inconvenient events? May we have an assurance that in next year's annual report there will be references to the recession in manufacturing, to the decline in agricultural incomes, to the raid on pension funds, to council tax increases four times the rate of inflation and, of course, to the Sierra Leone fiasco?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I hate to say so, but the right hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. For example, last year's annual report referred to the mistake that was made on lone-parent benefits—the Government were big enough and brave enough to own up to it. The next annual report will record the Government's many successes, including the 169 Labour party manifesto commitments, which have, to date, been implemented in part or in whole.

Biotechnology and Genetic Modification Ministerial Group

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the membership, work and progress of the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification. [68647]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The ministerial group oversees all aspects of biotechnology policy. It is made up of Ministers from all Departments with an interest in biotechnology. One of its first decisions was to begin an examination of the United Kingdom framework for overseeing the technology.

Mr. Dalyell: As a well-qualified chemist, and in my right hon. Friend's official capacity, can he do anything to dispel the ignorant hysteria that often surrounds genetic modification?

Dr. Cunningham: The UK is a world leader in biotechnology, which has huge potential to benefit society by delivering improvements to health, agriculture, food production and to the environment. However, it must do so in ways that gain public trust and confidence. The Government's primary duty is to protect people and the environment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, while it is right for the media and others to probe and challenge and to examine what is happening, they should take care not to alarm or mislead people unnecessarily. It is important that we make clear to everyone that the decisions that we take are based on the best available medical, scientific and industrial advice. I would be the last to complain about criticism from the media, but it is important that we do not undermine public confidence in the potential of biotechnology to bring huge benefits to humankind.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In accord with the Minister's comments, I acknowledge that the ministerial group has a considerable work load because of the huge backlog left as a result of the previous Government's inadequate attention to those important issues, despite the efforts of Liberal Democrat Members. May I ask particularly that the ministerial group should examine carefully the work of the Rowett research institute in Aberdeen, which has reviewed the results of the research undertaken last year into the impact of

genetically modified food on the immune systems of rats and by definition, therefore, on humans? That research is obviously extremely important and is funded by the Government.

Dr. Cunningham: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government understand and act on genuine concerns expressed by the public and by hon. Members. I assure him also that we examine all the available scientific evidence. For those reasons, the Government have taken action on food labelling, for example. We shall shortly publish decisions following consultation with the catering industry. We have taken action to set up an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs. We have set up a Cabinet Committee, as I said, to examine all those matters. We are pressing in Europe for better control in all those areas. None of that was done by the Conservatives when they were in government.
As we have been speaking about misleading and irresponsible statements, may I say that nothing was more misleading or irresponsible than the Leader of the Opposition saying last week in the House that English Nature had called for a moratorium on these matters? It certainly has not done so. English Nature recognises that it is important to carry out the experimental trials on genetically modified crops, so that we can make a proper scientific assessment of their impact on the environment.

Joan Ruddock: In its further deliberations on biotechnology and genetic engineering, will my right hon. Friend invite the ministerial group to consider the difference between the application to medical science, where the patient who is carrying the risk hopes to be the beneficiary, and the application to crop production, where the risks are carried by the environment and the public, and those who hope to reap all the benefits are the producers?

Dr. Cunningham: I can tell my hon. Friend that we already do so. For that among other reasons, I made it clear to the House today that we not only listen to but act on the advice of organisations such as English Nature and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. We study their recommendations carefully. I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that both those organisations believe that it is right and safe for controlled trials of genetically modified crops to take place, precisely so that we can evaluate their impact on the environment before commercial exploitation would be allowed.

Mr. James Gray: All interested observers agree with the Minister; the last thing that we want is public concern on such matters. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week called for a moratorium, on good advice from English Nature in its written evidence to the House of Lords Committee that is looking into those matters. We simply do not know what effect genetically modified foods will have on human health. Therefore all we want is a three-year moratorium on their commercial use, so that we can find out what the scientific evidence is.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman repeats the error of interpretation of English Nature's position. I have a letter from English Nature, which states:
English Nature is not against genetic modification per se and always gives advice based on sound science. Contrary to what has been reported, we are not asking for a moratorium on commercial release of all genetically modified crops.
The Opposition may be calling for that, irresponsibly, and damaging Britain's prospects, but they are totally misleading in saying that English Nature supports that call.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: A great deal of the public debate about the risks of GM foods and crops is made more difficult by the complexity of the scientific research which underpins it. An example would be the research at the Rowett research institute, which does not pertain to the risks of GM foods in general but of particular lectins included in GM foods. What is the ministerial group doing to enable the public better to understand the complexity of the science which underpins biotechnology, so that the public debate generates rather more light and considerably less heat? Will my right hon. Friend make that information available to the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly needs a scientific education?

Dr. Cunningham: If the Leader of the Opposition continues to take advice from the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, it is no wonder that he is in a mess, as he is on many other things.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The ministerial group has been considering exactly the kind of strategy that she says we should, so that we can put the facts dispassionately before the British people. In addition, my noble Friend the Minister for Science is carrying out a public consultation on public attitudes to and understanding of bioscience, so that we know exactly people's fears and concerns and are better informed about how to deal with them.

Better Government (Older People)

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the better government initiative for older people. [68650]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): There is a great deal of interest in this important part of our modernising government programme. Next month we will be setting up a learning network so that many more local authorities across the United Kingdom can share learning and experience on improving services. Well over 200 authorities, including that of the hon. Gentleman, have already expressed an interest.

Mr. Amess: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my deep disappointment that my constituency was not chosen for the pilot scheme, given that a huge number of elderly people in Southend, West are suffering from the Government's failure to address the bed-blocking crisis there, and the fact that they are struggling on their pensions? How on earth does the Minister expect anyone

to take as genuine the Government's concern for elderly people when, of a Government of 119, only 11 of those who sit in the Commons are over 55?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Where does one begin? We have put £21 billion into the health service; we have established a royal commission on long-term care; and two of the 11 to whom the hon. Gentleman refers are right here on the Front Bench. The point of the better government initiative for older people is that it looks holistically at the needs of older people, of which there are many, including recreational needs and law and order concerns. Some of our pilot schemes involve them in lifelong learning projects. They do not give up the ghost as simply as some hon. Members seem to think. That is the way in which we enable, empower and involve older people in our communities, and that is to be applauded.

Ms Linda Perham: When considering the representations on better government for older people, will my hon. Friend say something about the work of the performance and innovation unit on active aging in the Cabinet Office, and confirm that, in our one and three quarter years in office we have done more for older people than the Conservative Government did in 18 years?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The performance and innovation unit is yet another—forgive the play on words—innovation of this Government, which will consider a variety of areas, including active aging, in the longer term. Active aging is very much at the forefront of our thinking in the better government pilots.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the words "better government initiative" ring hollow in West Sussex where the Government grant has been so dramatically cut that many vital services for old people are having to be reviewed? How does that square with a better government initiative directed towards the interests of old people?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The better government for older people initiative is a series of pilots. I am not aware whether West Sussex is one of the pilot areas, but 28 schemes embrace the whole country. They are not intended to provide an instant answer to the problems of every area, but they will disseminate good practice through the learning network which is being set up. As I said in my initial answer, more than 200 local authorities think that the initiative is worth while in spreading good practice in catering for the needs of older citizens.

Drugs

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on his new targets to encourage closer co-operation between Government Departments to tackle drugs problems. [68651]

Mr. Clive Efford: If he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government initiatives against drugs. [68652]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government's 10-year strategy has four key targets: reducing young people's drug misuse,


reducing drug-related offending, increasing participation in drug treatment programmes and reducing access to drugs among young people. Under a public service agreement, all relevant Secretaries of State, and their agencies, are committed to working together to achieve those shared targets.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that police in Wirral believe that considerable progress is being made as a result of that interdepartmental, multi-agency work? The police are concerned, however, that substances such as GHB are increasingly used by young people but, because such substances are not formally regarded as dangerous drugs, those youngsters are not caught by that activity. Will he take note of the views of Wirral police and consider them when those matters are next reviewed?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will. This is where it is helpful to be an organic chemist: gamma hydroxy butyrate—the substance to which my hon. Friend refers—can cause damage to people and is not licensed for use in the United Kingdom as a drug; nor is it covered by United Nations drug conventions. We are aware that there is a small problem in some areas, which we keep under careful scrutiny. We are working with the Medicines Control Agency and others to ensure that this problem does not grow and get out of hand.

Mr. Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the concern in many communities about certain addresses that are clearly used for the sale of drugs, but which are not subject to checks by the relevant agencies? Although I appreciate that it takes time to investigate such matters, and that surveillance is often taking place, will he stress to those agencies that swift action often presents a better face to the community than letting such problems drift.

Dr. Cunningham: Operational matters in connection with investigations into the abuse or illegal sale of drugs are not matters in which Ministers intervene, but if my hon. Friend has a particular problem in his constituency, and if he lets us know about it, we will certainly draw it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary—perhaps he could ask him—has recently written to chief constables, informing them that, in future, 1 per cent. of police budgets can be used for drug treatment purposes? Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend to make certain that precious police resources are not siphoned from law enforcement, so that decent law-abiding people do not have their lives further blighted by drug-related crime and by the unsavoury activities of drug pushers and dealers?

Dr. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend is present and has heard what the hon. Lady says, but let me point out that, as recently as last autumn, we allocated an additional £217 million for use by drug action teams to add force and resources to the excellent work that they are doing in conjunction with the police and other authorities.

Mr. Nigel Evans: One of the Departments earmarked by the drugs tsar, Keith

Hellawell, was the Department for Education and Employment. What will the Minister do to ensure that proper resources are directed towards teachers, headmasters and those who work in schools to ensure that young children get the required message, which is that drugs are dangerous?

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point: it is essential that we get advice and information to schools—teachers and pupils—about the danger posed to them by the misuse of drugs. The Department for Education and Employment was included in the overall package relating to drugs and will certainly gain additional resources, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) a few moments ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. David Stewart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February.

The Prime Minister(Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of land reform in Scotland, from the historic struggles of the Highland Land League to reform crofting laws, to difficulties that the Knoydart Foundation is having in my constituency, where it is attempting to run its own 17,000-acre estate. Does he agree that land reform should be one of the essential high priorities in the new Scottish Parliament, and that the Scottish Parliament does not want separation and dislocation?

The Prime Minister: I know that the Scottish Labour party's proposals on land reform have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend knows, I was delighted that, last week, we flushed out the Scottish National party's proposals for starting independence negotiations literally the day after any success that it may have in the Scottish Parliament elections. People now know that there is a clear choice between devolution and the costs of divorce.

Mr. William Hague: When the Foreign Affairs Committee describes the workings of the Foreign Office as being like an episode of "Yes, Minister", and the Labour Chairman of the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes, he is sitting on the Labour Benches—says that that great Department of state is being turned from the Rolls-Royce of Whitehall into an old banger, whom are we to hold responsible?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that that is the case. We shall respond carefully to the Select Committee's recommendations, as I said yesterday.


Having studied the report in great detail, I think that the Committee's criticisms of the civil servants were disproportionate and unfair.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister says that he will respond carefully, but the Government were dismissing the report before it had even been published yesterday. The Prime Minister was saying that Ministers should be exonerated before the report had even been published. The answer is that no one will take responsibility. The report describes failures at every level of the Foreign Office, including Ministers dealing in half-truths. It describes how Ministers were unaware of a Customs raid on their Department for three weeks. It says that many of the problems would not have occurred had Ministers explained their policies to their officials. If the Foreign Secretary, not civil servants, is not to be held responsible for the condition of the Foreign Office, who is?

The Prime Minister: As I have explained, I do not accept that. All the facts to which the Select Committee drew attention had already been covered by the Legg inquiry. The allegations, most ridiculously made by the former Home Secretary, who is now the shadow Foreign Secretary, were dismissed by that inquiry. As I said yesterday, we shall of course respond to the detailed points that the Foreign Affairs Committee has made, but I think that its criticism of civil servants is unfair, because it puts in the context of today, with all the focus on the breach of the arms embargo, events that happened months and months ago when the context was completely different. In those circumstances, the report's criticisms of civil servants were disproportionate and unfair. As civil servants cannot reply, I shall reply for them.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has clearly not studied the report carefully. He said that everything in it was covered by the Legg report, but paragraph 72 of the Select Committee report says:
One aspect of the Sandline affair which has worried us is the way in which intelligence information received from the Ministry of Defence was treated with … cavalier disregard by the FCO … It is also extraordinary that Sir Thomas Legg … were misinformed. If they were misinformed about this, then is it … not impossible that they were misinformed in other areas?
Is this not a story of incompetence, half-truths, secrecy and contempt for Parliament, for which the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are responsible? It is not a happy situation for the world's top moral and spiritual leader to be presiding over that.
The report was produced by hon. Members from both sides of the House, who studied the issues at great length. Does the Prime Minister intend to take the report seriously, or to treat the House, its Committees and their reports with complete arrogance and contempt?

The Prime Minister: As I have already said and will repeat for the third time, we shall consider carefully the points that the Select Committee has made. I emphasise yet again that it did not find that Ministers had engaged in some great conspiracy to breach arms embargoes, and it did not find any of the Opposition's allegations correct. It launched serious and vehement criticisms of the behaviour of certain civil servants. I happen to think that those criticisms are unfair. [Interruption.] I am asked on what grounds. I shall tell the House on exactly what grounds they are unfair.
The criticisms of civil servants were directed at their conduct in the early months of 1998. At that point in time, the focus in the House was on how we could do more to help the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone. When we had the debate in the House on 12 March last year, not a single member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee spoke, and the Opposition Front-Bench Members demanded that we did even more to help the democratic regime in Sierra Leone.
All I am saying in respect of the civil servants is that it is important not to apply, with the benefit of hindsight, counsels of perfection and rules, when that is not fully justified if we take account of the context at the time.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many small firms should do more to meet the challenge of millennium compliance? Will he ensure that the Government make every effort to help them attain the standards being achieved by many larger corporations and by Government Departments?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. The position of larger United Kingdom firms is encouraging, as almost all of them have made proper provision for dealing with the millennium bug. We have trained 11,000 people to help companies deal with the millennium bug, and we are training a further 10,000.
I give a warning to small and medium businesses in Britain. About 80 per cent. of them will be able to deal with the millennium bug, but a large proportion are not yet in a position to do so. They must ensure that their systems are in order for 2000. We will assist them by giving them free help and advice, but they must ensure that they are millennium compliant for 2000. Britain is now a leader, if not the leader, on this in the world. That will be no good if our small businesses do not follow the lead of larger companies and the public sector and ensure that they are millennium compliant for 2000.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Yesterday's report on Sandline was one of the most damning ever delivered on a Government Department. Is not the more serious issue the fact that, while the Government have been playing pass the parcel with the blame for this matter, in the past year the terrible tragedy in Sierra Leone has repeated itself? The rebels who were defeated by Sandline arms have now been re-armed, apparently with the assistance of another British company. Sierra Leone is again under assault, and thousands have been killed.
The lessons to be learned from the arms to Iraq scandal, Sandline and the unabated flood of weapons into every trouble spot in Africa are clear. Unless and until we establish a proper international regime for the control of arms, those scandals will not end—they will occur again and again. When will the Government support such a measure?

The Prime Minister: It is as a result of the Government's actions that we have tightened arrangements for arms sales both here and in the European Union.
I thought for a moment that, at long last, we were going to reach the real issue, which is not Sandline or even the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, but what we do about


the situation in Sierra Leone. Whatever the Conservative party may say, I make no apology for the support and help that we have given the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone. It is rightly fighting the rebels because, if the rebels were allowed to gain control, they would encourage destruction and death on a vast scale. This Government and this country, together with Nigeria, are doing all that they can to help that democratically elected regime. That, I suggest, is the real issue.

Mr. Ashdown: In that case, the Government have failed, because the rebels who were defeated have now been rearmed—again.
The Government say that they are in favour of an international regime for arms control. Good. Does the Prime Minister find it odd, though, that, less than two weeks ago, when the Germans in the European Council proposed that we publish the European report on arms sales, the Government declined to support them? Will he now give an undertaking that, when the Germans return on 18 March with a European code for arms brokers, the Government will support them this time?

The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman we have been leading the way on arms control in the European Union. Secondly, it is true that the rebels have been rearmed, but they have not been rearmed by this country; they have been rearmed by sources wholly outside this country. What is important, surely, is for us to focus on how we can help the democratically elected regime in Sierra Leone, and that is precisely what the Government are doing.

Helen Jackson: Has the Prime Minister considered that all the enthusiasm for tax-exempt special savings accounts, new retirement pensions, stakeholder pensions and individual savings accounts is making our 10 million existing pensioners feel a bit left out in the cold? Perhaps they feel that their huge voluntary efforts in the community do not count enough. Will the Prime Minister find ways of combining initiatives from all Departments—not least the Treasury—to produce a programme that will give a significant boost to existing pensioners and the quality of their lives in Britain today?

The Prime Minister: We are giving substantial help to pensioners with the new stakeholder pension schemes, from which up to 5 million people can benefit, and with pension sharing on divorce. Moreover, for the first time, we are introducing a pension for carers. Nearly 10 million pensioners benefit from winter fuel payments, and there is a £2.5 billion programme to help the poorest pensioners over the next few years.
Yes, we always look for better ways of co-ordinating Government help; but it is this Government who are helping pensioners with their winter fuel, having cut the VAT on fuel that the last Government increased. We are also providing the poorest pensioners with the help that the last Government denied them for decades.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Prime Minister believe that cutting the married couples allowance and now, perhaps, taxing child benefit are ways in which to tackle the country's spiralling divorce and illegitimacy rates? In the light of yesterday's ministerial

admission that, under the working families tax credit, nearly everyone will be eligible for state-funded child-care payments provided that they are not the actual mother or father of the child concerned, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he sees any role for marriage in his new model family policy?

The Prime Minister: First, it was the last Government—with the hon. Gentleman's support—who cut the married couples allowance first. Secondly, I take it from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against the help with child care that we are giving people. We are in favour of helping people with child care, because it is an important part of enabling them to raise their children—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not have barracking and shouting.

The Prime Minister: Helping with child care is an important part of enabling people to balance work and family responsibilities.
Thirdly, it is this Government who, from April, will make the largest increase in child benefit that the country has ever seen. Surely that is the way in which to help families.

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that crude league tables do not always tell the full story of a school's success, and that the notion of added value, which shows how staff are driving up standards in schools to improve educational quality, is just as valid? At Carr Manor high school in Moortown, Leeds, where recently a new library was opened, the head made it clear that it was reading books and developing literacy that were the keys to that added value, which can so substantially affect a child's future and improve it.

The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those at Carr Manor high school in my hon. Friend's constituency on the work that they are doing. Again, it is because of the extra money that we have given for school books—£1,000 for every school—and because of the stress on literacy and numeracy that yesterday's Ofsted results showed such improvement in our schools. Yes, there is still a long way to go, but yesterday's Ofsted report shows that, under this Government, significant improvement in all those areas of literacy and numeracy is finally taking place.

Mr. William Hague: As the Chancellor is preparing the Budget for next month, will the Prime Minister tell the House by how much taxes have increased since he took office?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have set out our proposals in the Budget, but he will be aware that business tax has come down under this Government. Of course, as a result of the national insurance cut, from this April, every worker in the country will get a tax cut.

Mr. Hague: It was a pretty straightforward question and there is a pretty straightforward answer, which is to add together the figures in the Red Books—the


Government's own books—on the last two Budgets. They show that the total tax increase for this financial year of the last two Budgets is £6,800 million, which is £260 for every taxpayer in the country in pension taxes, petrol taxes and mortgage taxes. The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware of it at all. I hope that he has not done his own self-assessment, or he will be in trouble. If he does not know the actual figure for tax increases, will he remind the House instead of the specific pledges that he made about the level of taxation at the last general election?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is what we have kept to. We said that we would not raise the basic or higher rate of income tax. As for what he quotes out of the Red Book, he will be aware that the projections made by his Government before we took office were the same.

Mr. Hague: The columns in the Red Book are the changes from previous plans. If the Prime Minister does not know that, he had better have a good look at the Red Book, but he does not even know what he said at the last election. In September 1996, he said:
We've no plans to increase tax at all".
He said in the City in September 1996:
We want people to pay lower taxes".
He said on "The World At One" in January 1997:
the programme of the Labour Party does not imply any tax increases at all.
Now, he cannot remember those things. With a memory such as that, he could get a job in the Foreign Office any day. Is it not time that he started to live up to those promises and instructed the Chancellor to prepare a Budget that will meet them, instead of betraying them, as he has done twice before?

The Prime Minister: We have met all the promises that we made. We promised that we would cut VAT on fuel and we did. People remember the 22 tax rises under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, in breach of all their promises. However, what he is now saying is that it would be his policy to change all those issues, all those matters—that he would reverse them all. Would he? Of course, he would not. What we have done for the first time is to get rid of the huge national debt that was inherited from the Conservative party. The £28 billion borrowing has gone. We have the lowest mortgage rates for over 30 years. Employment is up 400,000. We have halved youth unemployment—and how have we done it? We have rejected the politics of boom and bust, in favour of a stable economy. [Interruption.] Oh yes! It is not the Government, but the Opposition who suffer from amnesia. We shall remind people at the next election that they can have boom or bust again under the Tories or stability under Labour.

Mr. Fraser Kemp: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the recent announcement by the Nissan motor company of 800 new jobs in my constituency, giving hope and opportunity to many of my constituents who have been denied them for too long?

The Prime Minister: I very much welcome that new investment. I also welcome the commitment to continuing

inward investment in Britain. As my hon. Friend will know, we are setting stable conditions for industry so that we can come out of this downturn and prosper in future at the same time as tackling structural unemployment through the new deal. That is the best combination of policies for the future of the country.

Mr. William Cash: In December last year, I called on the Prime Minister to give the British people and the House a White Paper on the constitutional, economic and political implications of joining the single currency. He refused. Is he now aware that there is a early-day motion on the Order Paper signed by Labour Members, Liberal Democrats, Euro-sceptics and Europhiles on both sides of the House and by hon. Members representing the Ulster parties, calling on the Prime Minister to provide the British people with the truth about the constitutional, political and economic questions arising from the single currency? Will he now review the position set out in the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a consensus politician after all these years. The position that we set out is the right one. Of course there should be a full and proper public debate, and we look forward to being part of that debate. Whether or not his Front Bench would wish it, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also be part of that debate, but it should cover the whole range of issues in respect of monetary union. Frankly, we can have that debate without White Papers, but it should be based around the facts. However, the hon. Gentleman, and very many now—it is probably the majority position in the Conservative party—have set themselves against monetary union irrespective of the arguments and before the debate has even taken place. I believe that that is wrong and contrary to the best interests of the country.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. Friend understand the sense of betrayal among the work force at BP in Grangemouth who, having taken large numbers of job losses and redundancies to reach world-class status and attract substantial investment, have been told today that they are likely to face another 450-plus redundancies? Will he ensure that Scottish Office Ministers get round the table with me and the management of BP to ensure that, where jobs are being outsourced and put out to contract, they remain in the Scottish economy for the benefit of the stakeholders who share in the future of that industry?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that there will be discussions between my hon. Friend and the Ministers concerned. The oil industry is in difficulty as a result of the price of oil having dropped quite dramatically. My hon. Friend will know, however, that BP has made it clear that the investment that it announced late last year to create new jobs has not been put at risk by today's announcement. Obviously, we sympathise very much with the jobs that are now at risk and we shall do whatever we can to help, but it is good to know that BP has reiterated its commitment to continuing and further investment in the oil industry in Scotland.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Is the Prime Minister aware that the cost of a first-class


postage stamp is greater than the extra 25p a week—just 25p a week—for older pensioners? Is it not about time that the Government gave a first-class pension to pensioners?

The Prime Minister: Of course it is important to do that. It is important also that, when we have proposals from the Liberal Democrats, they are costed proposals.

Mr. Paul Keetch: They are.

The Prime Minister: I very much doubt that, based on experience. Regardless, let me not criticise the Liberal Democrats. I should, however, point out to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that, although he talks about 25p per week, our introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners will ensure that a single pensioner will receive at least £75 per week, and that a couple will receive at least £116 per week. When we add on top of that help with winter fuel bills, we are giving at least the poorest pensioners in our society considerably more help than he admits.

Mr. Phil Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some temporary workers in my Corby constituency experience awful exploitation at the hands of employment agencies, and face penalty clauses of £1 an hour if they fail to complete a contract? Will he ensure me that the Employment Relations Bill will, after it becomes an Act of Parliament, enable a root-and-branch overhaul of the regulations governing those employment agencies, so that we can have fairness for every individual in the workplace?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has listened to the points that my hon. Friend has made. Fairness at work cannot deal with all the difficulties that people face at the workplace. However, it will mean that, for the first time, people will have basic rights that have been denied to them in the United Kingdom but are simply the rights taken for granted around the world. From what was said in last night's debate, we now know that Conservative Members would, if they were elected to power, get rid of the minimum wage, get rid of the family-friendly provisions in the fairness at work Bill, and get rid of the basic trade union rights that everyone else in the world takes for granted.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the Prime Minister agree with the view that wealth creation is more important than wealth redistribution?

The Prime Minister: I think that both are extremely important.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that, in the next few months, consultation exercises will be launched across the country to examine the implications for localities of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Will he join me in welcoming the enthusiasm with which many of the partners have entered into the work that they have to do? This morning, I was at the launch in King's Lynn of consultations between West Norfolk borough council, Norfolk county council and the Norfolk police. Does my

right hon. Friend agree that the most important partnership will be between those who serve the community and the community itself? Will he join me in encouraging the public to have their voices heard during both the audit and the development of the crime and disorder strategies that their communities need?

The Prime Minister: I urge the public to get involved in the consultations on crime strategies in their area. Over the next three years, £250 million extra will be going into crime prevention. The new crime and disorder legislation will allow us to deal with violent and unruly neighbours who are making people's lives hell in estates across the country. I urge people to use the powers, which are available and can make a big difference to the safety and security of our communities. People should know that they have a responsibility to behave properly towards the area in which they live.

Young People (Oxfordshire)

Dr. Evan Harris: What estimate he has made of the effect of the 1999–2000 standard spending assessment settlement for children's social services on vulnerable young people in Oxfordshire.

The Prime Minister: The standard spending assessment for Oxfordshire will increase by 3.8 per cent. next year. If the authority's action plan is approved, Oxford will also receive an additional £586,000 for children's services, through the new quality protects grant. That far-reaching programme of action will improve all local authority children's services and is backed up by £375 million of targeted extra money.

Dr. Harris: The Prime Minister should be aware that the 10 per cent. cut in the children's SSA from this year to next year, combined with a continuation of the crazy Tory capping rules, are forcing the county council to threaten to close resource centres for disabled children—such as Summerfield, in Abingdon, in my constituency. The Kidlington family centre also is under threat, and there is a threat to community hospitals in my constituency. What does the Prime Minister say to parents of disabled children who fought 18—no, 20—years of Tory cuts, only to see their services face the chop under a Labour Government? Can he justify paying for the political prioritisation of education by cutting services to the most vulnerable in our society?

The Prime Minister: Let me just correct the hon. Gentleman. Oxfordshire's spending on all services will increase by almost 4 per cent. It is correct that the new allocation formula gives a much higher weighting to the number of people on income support, and that that factor has affected Oxfordshire's settlement. However, the Oxfordshire SSA works out at £97 per child in the county. That is in line with the average for shire counties, and is more than for similar shire counties in the south, such as Buckinghamshire, where the figure is £87 per child, and Cambridgeshire, where the figure is £91 per child. I understand the difficulties that have been caused by changes in the way in which the SSA has been calculated for Oxfordshire, but it still comes out significantly ahead of many other shires.

Rod and Line Fishing

Mr. Anthony Steen: What representations the Government have received from the pleasure boat industry regarding rod and line fishing.

The Prime Minister: We have received a number of representations from the pleasure boat industry regarding rod and line fishing—including, I understand, one from the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Steen: Is the Prime Minister aware that, if he came out angling off the Devon coast, he would not catch one mackerel? The reason for that is simple. EU commercial industrial factory ships are taking all the mackerel, spraying chemicals on them, so that they cannot be identified, and then converting them into feed for European animals. Is he aware of that? Will he tell EU Ministers that fishing for mackerel in a conservation mackerel box has to stop?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. He has issued so many invitations to me to

come out on various boats with him in the past few weeks that I am beginning to get worried about us. To be frank, I was not aware of the particular problem to which he has just referred, but I will look into it carefully. I know that he is a strong critic of the common fisheries policy, and I know that there have been a lot of difficulties in its implementation. However, I still believe that we would make a great mistake if we withdrew from it or scrapped it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Tory Front-Benchers say that that is rubbish. I think that our fishermen would lose an awful lot more if we withdrew from that policy.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Tories signed up to it.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend points out, it was actually signed by the Tory party in government. I will look carefully into the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and be in touch with him about it.

Points of Order

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. Lady. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? The conversations are far too loud.

Ann Clwyd: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You may recall that in the United States last week, damages of £65 million were granted against the author of a website which listed 200 doctors in the United States who carry out abortions. They were described as "baby butchers" and the damages were awarded because it was considered that the website amounted to death threats. I raise this matter in the House because three doctors on the list were murdered, and there were attempts to murder other doctors. There have been 39 bombings of abortion clinics and 99 acid attacks in recent years.
On a similar worldwide website—entitled "Christian pro-life against abortion and pro-choice murderers"—are listed 62 hon. Members of this House. The implication is that they are all pro-murder. Lawyers have advised me that the comments in which the information is included are defamatory. I would be grateful, in view of the implied threat, if you would investigate the matter.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. These Christian fundamentalists, with their obsessive hatred of anybody who opposes their view, deliberately incite violence against individuals. Many of us, as Members of Parliament, have been threatened and intimidated, including the late and wonderful Jo Richardson. Given that the information is on a worldwide website, can you ensure that the British groups—supported by certain hon. Members—with links with US groups advocating murder and terrorism are properly investigated by the appropriate authorities?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Ladies seemed to imply that this may be a matter of privilege. If they think that, they should put the matter to me in writing. This is the first intimation that I have had of it. I will look into the matter, but if it is thought that there is privilege involved, I urge them to let me have the information in writing, so that I can investigate it properly.

BILL PRESENTED

WELFARE REFORM AND PENSIONS

Mr. Secretary Darling, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon and Mr. Hugh Bayley, presented a Bill to make provision about pensions and social security; to make provision for reducing under-occupation of dwellings by housing benefit claimants; to authorise certain expenditure by the Secretary of State having responsibility for social security; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Poverty and Social Exclusion (National Strategy)

Mr. David Drew: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the production and implementation of a comprehensive, participatory strategy for co-ordinated Government action to reduce and eliminate poverty and social exclusion in the United Kingdom.
In his Sheffield speech at the launch of the new deal, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the scale of the challenge that the Labour Government face to tackle poverty and social exclusion. He said:
we now face a task of reconstruction as intense as the one that faced the post-war Labour Government and that's why we need an anti-poverty strategy of the same ambition and breadth.
I am proud to say that much has been achieved already the new deals for the young, lone parents and disabled people are already helping to get people back into jobs; the statutory national minimum wage will help to end the scandal of poverty pay; increased spending on education will help to prevent poverty; and the new deal for communities will help to regenerate not only bricks and mortar, but the life chances and opportunities of people living in some of the country's most deprived neighbourhoods.
In addition to all that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, whose job is to focus on the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and to co-ordinate action across Government. That is an impressive record of achievement from which I do not want for one moment to detract. Indeed, many of us entered politics in the first place to tackle poverty and all its consequences.
Why, then, is there a need for the Bill? Primarily, it provides a framework in which the excellent start that the Government have made can be developed. It is not a framework that I have dreamt up, but one that was agreed at the 1995 world summit for social development in Copenhagen. One of the summit's towering achievements was to bring together Governments from the developing and the developed world to consider the issue of poverty globally. For the first time, the absolute poverty experienced in many developing countries and the relative poverty experienced in countries such as the United Kingdom were considered together. The poverty here may be less extreme than that in some other countries, but it is no less unacceptable or offensive.
At Copenhagen, the then Tory Government signed up to a programme of action that required the development of national strategies to combat poverty and social exclusion; unfortunately, they failed to produce such a strategy. If adopted, the approach agreed in Copenhagen and taken in the Bill would develop the Government's anti-poverty strategy in two key ways. First, the development of policies designed to combat poverty and social exclusion would be participatory. Participatory policy development means that all those with something to contribute to the process are included in it, and implies new forms of democracy to encourage active engagement and empower communities, which is something that the Government are already promoting in their proposals for improving local democracy. In this context, it means that people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion are at the head of policy making.
Participation does not mean consultation with or involving organisations and individuals who speak on behalf of those living with poverty and social exclusion. That may well be necessary, but real participation means taking seriously the proposition that the real experts are those who live daily with poverty and social exclusion. The barriers created by the complexities of the benefit system, the struggle to make ends meet on an extremely low income, the reality of exploitation in the workplace, the burden of crime or, indeed, the additional problems for those suffering from mental illness all go hand in hand with poverty in the United Kingdom.
The social exclusion unit has found to its cost how difficult real participation can be. Although it has made some attempt to include people experiencing poverty and social exclusion in its work, this has not really been a success. Tight deadlines, very short periods of consultation and a lack of resources have all acted against participation. What is needed is a national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion, which includes participation from the outset. Participation should be not an add-on to discussion but a central force in that discussion. The Bill would require that, and it provides a framework in which it could take place.
Some hon. Members may argue that such participation is not possible. To them I would say that it may be difficult, but participatory policy work is already taking place. Every month, members of the UK Coalition Against Poverty encourage men and women who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion to take part in the meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The ideas and knowledge that these experts bring is invaluable. They are resources that should not be pushed to the margin, but brought into the centre. With sufficient time and support, this small start could be extended to other aspects of policy making. The Bill would require that to happen.
The second key element of the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion included in the Bill is the requirement to set time-bound and measurable targets. We live in an age of targets, and we know how effective they can be in galvanising action towards a particular goal. If we are serious about first reducing and then eliminating poverty and social exclusion in the UK—I believe that the Government are—why should we be afraid of targets? Let us demonstrate our commitment to this goal by saying openly, "This is what we want to achieve, and this is how we intend to achieve it."
In the Republic of Ireland, where a national anti-poverty strategy has been in place since 1997, targets have been set in a range of areas, including unemployment, income adequacy and educational disadvantage. The Bill would require the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion to include similar targets relevant to the UK.
A Government such as that now in office, for whom social justice is a primary political objective, have nothing to fear and everything to gain from publicly seeking ambitious targets. Indeed, the Government have already set themselves ambitious targets in various ways, whether in the reduction of class sizes or getting unemployed young people into work. In one of the first

White Papers of this Parliament, the Government also set themselves ambitious targets for tackling poverty. In her White Paper entitled "Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development set out the following target: a reduction by one half of the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. It is a noble and important goal, but if we can set a target for tackling the poverty that blights the lives of our brothers and sisters overseas, surely we owe it to our brothers and sisters at home to do the same.
The setting of targets is, of course, a difficult matter. At worst, targets can be set so low that achieving them is meaningless; at best, they can be a powerful tool for change. Work on establishing common agreed indicators of poverty and social exclusion, such as that recently undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, can be built on to provide targets against which performance can be measured.
It is essential, however, that targets for the reduction of poverty and social exclusion reflect the concerns and priorities of those directly affected. That is why the Bill includes the opportunity for people with direct experience of poverty and social exclusion to be involved in the setting of targets and then in monitoring and evaluating the progress made towards achieving them.
The Republic of Ireland is not the only EU country to have followed up the commitments made in Copenhagen. Last year, a law against exclusion was passed in France. That legislation is designed to help everyone to access and exercise their rights. For people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, the denial of rights that others take for granted is a daily fact of life.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has made clear, the right to a decent standard of health is a good starting point. The poorest members of society are ill more often and die sooner than their wealthier neighbours, so the national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would bring forward measures designed to ensure that the rights that poverty and social exclusion too often deny to many citizens are restored to them.
My own experience is based on 12 years as a councillor in the county of Gloucestershire. During that time, I discovered for myself the reality and the pernicious nature of poverty across the spectrum from rural to urban areas. With other councillors, I helped to devise the county's anti-poverty strategy in 1997. Our council joined the growing number of other local authorities adopting such strategies: Suffolk, for example, has done innovative work in rural areas.
Establishing our strategy in Gloucestershire has resulted in some pioneering work to help map rural poverty, right down to enumeration areas. A national strategy would help to provide a real boost to local policies, practices and partnerships, above all because such a strategy would be effective in co-ordinating policy across a range of Government Departments.
The national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion required by the Bill would have that scope. Indeed, it would provide a framework for what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called for at Sheffield—an anti-poverty strategy of the same breadth and vision as that adopted by the Labour Government of 1945.

Mr. Eric Forth: In this House, we have to decide whether the legislation that we propose and consider is serious, or whether it has become a series of gestures. Having listened to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I fear that his Bill falls into the latter category.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that stringing together enough buzz words will achieve the desired result. Even in the short passage that appears on the Order Paper, he has managed to squeeze in words such as "comprehensive", "participatory", "strategy" and "co-ordinated action" in quick succession, presumably in the hope that that will go some way towards producing the desired result.
I hope that the House will not be fooled by that. The simple repetition of words that sound positive and encouraging is not necessarily the way to achieve what is wanted. That is a real problem, but there is also a methodological problem with the proposals.
More often than not, the concept of poverty is defined in relative rather than absolute terms. It is often claimed that a quarter or a third of the population is in poverty, which is defined by reference to averages, overall incomes, medians or some other measure. The conclusion is that a person in the bottom third of a range of incomes is in poverty.
However, using that definition means that, although the lot of those defined as being in poverty can be improved, poverty itself can never be eliminated. The elimination of poverty might be possible if one were to use an absolute definition, but I do not think most people—and certainly not most Labour Members—define poverty in that way. If they did, we might be able to make some progress.
Then we come to our new friend, social exclusion. That is another term that has appeared in the language and which is supposed to have positive and warm connotations—at least for those who want to eliminate it. However, the hon. Member for Stroud admitted that the Government have already set up a social exclusion unit. Moreover, the Labour rhetoric claims that the problem of social exclusion, so recently identified, is now being tackled thoroughly and comprehensively by the Government.
I do not know whom to believe. Should I believe the Ministers who say that the problem is being dealt with and that the institutional mechanisms are in place? Or should I believe the hon. Member for Stroud, who thinks that an additional Bill—with additional buzz words attached—is needed, the better to deal with the problem of social exclusion? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with Ministers in a quiet corner somewhere to work out whether anything is really being done about the problem and whether the Bill is necessary.
Then we come to the word "participatory". I suppose that some people might think that the more syllables a word has, the more effective it will be, but that depends on their view of English. However, the hon. Member for Stroud tells us that better and more effective policy will be produced if all those with something to contribute are allowed to take part in the process. I wonder. How on earth would the people who have something to contribute be chosen, so that they might be allowed to make their contribution? That is a real problem: if many people have the direct experience that the hon. Member for Stroud

described, there must be some way to choose from their number—unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that all of them should be gathered together, according to some ancient Greek method. He would be faced, as we all would, with the problem of selecting who, of all those with a contribution to make, is best able to contribute in order better to promote policy. What he said was not very convincing in that regard.
The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned measurable targets, which may or may not be a good thing. He was honest enough to say that, if set too low, they can be too easily achieved, and if set too high, they might disappoint. Supposing, however, that we set meaningful targets, but they are not met. What would happen if all other mechanisms in the Bill, such as the new comprehensive strategy, co-ordinated action and social exclusion activity, were working splendidly as the hon. Gentleman intended, but the targets were still not met? What would be different, in trying to achieve his purposes, from what happens anyway?
I would certainly not in any way question the motives of the hon. Member for Stroud, which I am sure are the highest, but the House must learn to resist the temptation to give such measures a smile and a nod, to say that it sounds good and that it is the kind of thing that we all feel better at the end of the day's business for having agreed, because we have moved forward by a small step and the world is bound to be a better place. We must take ourselves more seriously. In order to do so, I cannot accept this measure, however well intentioned it is. It demeans the processes of the House and the meaning of legislation.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 16.

Division No. 62]
[3.51 pm


AYES


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Baker, Norman
Caton, Martin


Ballard, Jackie
Cawsey, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Cohen, Harry


Blears, Ms Hazel
Connarty, Michael


Blizzard, Bob
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Borrow, David
Cooper, Yvette


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradshaw, Ben
Cotter, Brian


Brake, Tom
Cousins, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Crausby, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Burnett, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Burstow, Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dafis, Cynog






Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Keetch, Paul


Davidson, Ian
Kemp, Fraser


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Khabra, Piara S


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kidney, David


Dawson, Hilton
Kirkwood, Archy


Dismore, Andrew
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Dobbin, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Laxton, Bob


Donohoe, Brian H
Levitt, Tom


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Drown, Ms Julia
Livsey, Richard


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAllion, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McCabe, Steve


Ennis, Jeff
McDonnell, John


Etherington, Bill
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Feam, Ronnie
McNulty, Tony


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Marek, Dr John


Flint, Caroline
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Follett, Barbara
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mitchell, Austin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Moffatt, Laura


Fyfe, Maria
Moran, Ms Margaret


Galloway, George
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gardiner, Barry
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mullin, Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Norris, Dan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Oaten, Mark


Goggins, Paul
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Hara, Eddie


Hancock, Mike
Olner, Bill


Harris, Dr Evan
Öpik, Lembit


Healey, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Heppell, John
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Pond, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Illsley, Eric
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Ms Jenny
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Roy, Frank


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Ruane, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ryan, Ms Joan





Salmond, Alex
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Todd, Mark


Sanders, Adrian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Savidge, Malcolm
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Watts, David


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wicks, Malcolm


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
(Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Willis, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wood, Mike


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stunell, Andrew
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Judy Mallaber and 


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Ivan Henderson.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Thompson, William


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Johnson Smith,
Wilkinson, John


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tellers for the Noes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Desmond Swayne and 


Pickles, Eric
Mr. John Bercow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Drew, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Chris Pond, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Steve Webb and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION (NATIONAL STRATEGY)

Mr. David Drew accordingly presented a Bill to require the production and implementation of a comprehensive, participatory strategy for co-ordinated Government action to reduce and eliminate poverty and social exclusion in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 May, and to be printed [Bill 45].

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill

(Clause 1)

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [25 January].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL

Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after' (buggery);' insert—
'(aa) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3 (buggery) of Schedule 2 (punishments, etc.);'.
I am pleased to see that the Home Secretary has joined the Minister of State, Home Office on the Treasury Bench. We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman in the Chamber but we are not sure what his presence signifies for the free vote that we on these Benches have been promised on this occasion. We hope that we will still have one.
I stress that I strongly support the clause. The purpose of the amendment is to explore ways in which the clause may be improved along the lines that I described in my contribution on Second Reading. It must be remembered that the clause deals with equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals in sexual matters relating to the criminal code. Amendment No. 1 draws attention to some of the other areas in which there should be equality.
There has not been a proper debate on such details for years and perhaps decades, if not centuries. Previous debates, especially on sentencing, have often taken place in the dark hours in the other place, at the last minute, and have been on measures tagged on to other Bills. This is the first opportunity in the context of a Government Bill for us to debate properly how equality in sentencing and other matters might be achieved.
Perhaps the most significant previous debate took place in the 1880s. The Government claim to be undertaking a process of modernisation, which some of us support. It is high time to modernise these laws.
We understand that it might be thought that some of these matters are covered by the Government's review of sexual offences. However, there is concern about the timetable of that review, first because these are relatively urgent matters, given that we are dealing with unequal sentences and other unequal provisions, and secondly because we are in danger of achieving equality and fairness in one part of a series of offences without making consequent changes in sentencing or in other respects covered by other amendments.
Amendment No. 1 deals with sentencing and other amendments deal with who can be charged with an offence. Other matters must be dealt with as new clauses and will be discussed in Standing Committee.
It is important to emphasise that in all these debates we are speaking about consensual offences. When we consider the appropriate sentence for such offences,

whether heterosexual or homosexual, it is important that we restrict our consideration to consensual offences. Non-consensual offences fall outwith the remit of the clause. I hope that we will be careful to make that distinction.
We must recognise that when we seek equality, which is the thrust of clause 1, we mean equality as between consensual anal intercourse between men—by which I mean buggery; it is also called other things, but I shall try to stick to the term "anal intercourse"—and unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and girls—in the case of offences that will remain criminal, even when the Bill is enacted—under the age of 16. It is vital that we make that connection when we speak of equality.
When we speak about maximum sentences, we should not propose such penalties unless we anticipate the courts using them. It is not satisfactory to hope that the courts will use their judgment if the sentence is too steep. It is the job of legislators to legislate and to ensure that when we set maximum sentences, we are prepared to see them carried out.
If we are not prepared for that, it is incumbent on us to legislate for appropriate sentences and to take the earliest opportunity—which is afforded by the selection of the amendment—to legislate for equality in sentences relating to offences that have been legalised for certain people but remain illegal in other cases.
Various sentences apply to gay men and their sexual activities, but do not apply to heterosexuals. In the Bill the Government refer to consequential amendments affecting sentences, but they have not grabbed the bull by the horns and tackled all the discriminatory sentences that exist, nor have they adjusted the scheduling of the sentences to the provision that they are seeking to enact, with support from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and across the House.
If one was decriminalising activities between the ages of 18 and 16 under certain circumstances—what those circumstances are falls outside the scope of the clause—one would expect to see the sentencing schedule amended to replace the word "eighteen" by "sixteen", where it applies.
If one considers the sentencing provisions that the Bill and my amendment seek to amend, under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, buggery or attempted buggery between a man and a person under the age of 16 is an offence—that is for consensual buggery—punishable by life imprisonment. For the similar heterosexual offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, the maximum sentence is two years.
There is a provision for a life sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 13 years of age or less, and that is an appropriate maximum sentence, but there is no similar provision for anal intercourse between a man and a young male under the age of 13, which should also carry a life sentence. That could be on the basis that the age is clearly too young generally, or that the act could not be properly consensual at that age.
That is something that the Bill does not remedy and I am unable to do so with the amendment either, but I hope that the Government will say what they consider to be the right sort of sentencing framework in that area.
We therefore still have the discrepancy between a life sentence for consensual anal intercourse between a man and a person under the age of 16 generally, and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl, where the maximum sentence is two years.
A further provision under section 12 of the 1956 Act, relating to buggery, that the Government are not amending is that, where a person is under the age of 18 and the accused man is over the age of 21, there is a maximum five-year sentence. There is no equivalent age provision for unlawful sexual intercourse with a female, so the two years still applies as the maximum sentence, which is lower in this case.
If the Government were seeking to recognise that the law had changed in respect of buggery and attempted buggery, they might have reduced the age in that clause from 18 to 16. That clause also covers buggery with an animal which attracts a life sentence; otherwise the offence attracts a sentence of two years. That is a hotchpotch, and my amendment seeks to recognise that the Government have not even started to address it in this legislation; it is vital that they do so.
As drafted, without the amendment, there is no change in the Bill's sentencing provision for buggery, which is surprising, as the age of 18 is written into the schedule. In section 13 of the 1956 Act, which is covered by the clause by virtue of its reference to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which in turn covers section 13 of the 1956 Act, which concerns gross indecency, one can detect another inconsistency in the current law between men and women. First, gross indecency is an offence which can apply only to men. There is no similar provision for unlawful consensual sex short of sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 16.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that it was vital that the Government should address those anomalies. Will he explain precisely why? I accept that the anomalies exist, but why it is vital that they should be dealt with escapes me.

Dr. Harris: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree—perhaps he does not—that where there is unjustified discrimination it should be removed at the earliest legislative opportunity. That is why the Labour party's general election manifesto said that, in the context of civil liberties, the party would seek to remove unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. We know that the Government use the words "at the earliest legislative opportunity" as an almost automatic caveat. We on these Benches understand that. This is the earliest legislative opportunity. If we believe that it is vital to correct discrimination that is unjustified—I do, and I believe that that view is shared by other hon. Members—it is clearly vital that this opportunity be taken.
4.15 pm
Gross indecency attracts a sentence of two years except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 18, when the sentence is five years. The Bill makes the consequential amendment to that provision and changes 18 to 16. The maximum sentence for gross indecency is

still two years in all circumstances, except where the accused is over 21 and the other party is under 16. There is no equivalent age differential for unlawful sexual intercourse, or sexual activity falling short of that, with a female under the age of 16.
My amendment would change schedule 2, which relates to section 12 of the 1956 Act, dealing with the offences of buggery and attempted buggery, by substituting 16 for 18. The problem with the amendment, as the Minister will no doubt point out, is that it does not change the discrimination that exists. The Committee may be interested to know that I tabled a much broader amendment that would match exactly, for consensual offences, the maximum sentence for homosexual offences with the equivalent sentence for heterosexual activity. That fell outwith the scope of the clause, however, and cannot be discussed on the Floor of the House today.
I understand that, but even if the Government had made the obvious consequential amendment and substituted 16 for 18, buggery or attempted buggery of a person under 16 would attract a life sentence. Substituting 16 for 18, however, means that buggery of a person under 16, when the accused man is over 21, would attract a maximum sentence of five years. As the Minister is aware, those two are inconsistent.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): So why table the amendment?

Dr. Harris: The Minister asks a reasonable question. I had hoped to make it clear that I question why the Government could not have introduced a wider measure to achieve equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals for these consensual offences. People understand that that would be sensible, given that, over decades, we have not had an opportunity to change a law which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree is anomalous and discriminatory.
Many people think that the law is heinously discriminatory, because people suffer longer sentences for a similar act purely on the basis of their sexuality, not on the basis of whether the sentence is proportional to the offence. Society has moved on. It is time we addressed these issues; and the general concern is that, although the Government have initiated a review of sexual offences, we have no clear timetable for legislation, even with the caveat "parliamentary time permitting".
It is of grave concern that there may be no such legislation during this Parliament. We may be faced with a more illiberal, old-fashioned Government in the next Parliament. I hope that we will not be; it will not happen if our party is represented among them—although we cannot guarantee that, even to our most avid supporters.
There is also concern that, if the timetable is such that the only opportunity to legislate arises just before the next general election, the Government may be tempted to decide that there are priorities higher than the much needed reform of sexual offences legislation.
I have tabled the amendment to give the Minister the opportunity to explain how he intends to tackle the discrimination that exists in sentencing and to accept that, without widening this measure, legislation containing unjustifiable discrimination in sentencing will remain on the statute book. Although I will not push the amendment


to a vote, I should be grateful if he responded to the points that I have made, as I informed him of them well in advance.

Mr. Boateng: This is truly a probing amendment, and I shall deal with it in that way.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) presents an amendment that is fundamentally flawed. Its effect would be to create a gross anomaly. He claims that he tabled it to highlight the fact that there are numerous anomalies in current legislation. We have long accepted that there are anomalies in the law relating to sexual offences, which is precisely why we have determined to establish an inclusive review of sexual offences that reflects the broad range of opinions on those issues. The review will draw on academic and legal expertise, on our faith communities and on practical good sense—indeed, common sense—in approaching those issues.
We must ensure that we have a rational and comprehensive system of law relating to sexual offences with, at its heart, the protection of vulnerable people. The Committee upstairs has spent a considerable time debating that, and we shall address the issue this afternoon. Indeed, that issue motivated us to introduce this legislation. We want to ensure, first, that we have equality before the law and, secondly, that we do everything in our power to protect vulnerable people who are prone to the depredations of those who would abuse their trust. The Bill deals with those two separate issues.
Clause 1 has a simple objective: to bring about a change based on the principle of equality. It makes the age of consent in England, Wales and Scotland 16, and in Northern Ireland 17, for homosexual as well as heterosexual activity.
There are anomalies and inconsistencies in the way the criminal law treats heterosexuals and homosexuals. We shall ensure that the review deals with those anomalies and that the protection of children and vulnerable people from those who would abuse them is central to the objectives of the system of penalties. We look to the sexual offences review to guide us on that objective.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon seeks to obtain from the Government an undertaking that we will legislate in the course of this Parliament. He will realise that I cannot give such an undertaking. I am prepared to tell him, however, that we intend to carry out the review within 12 months. It will be done with due expedition and, as I said, in an inclusive way that seeks to stimulate an informed public debate on those issues. We shall then consider the outcome of the review. That, in turn, will be subject to a proper consultation process and, in due course, legislation will be introduced.
That is how we intend to proceed. It is right that we should proceed in that way—with expedition, but at the same time ensuring that, at every stage, this vital area of the law is subject to proper reflection and consideration. Wide consultation is essential if we are to obtain a public consensus around a rational system of sexual offences law. We must tackle existing anomalies, but above all we must protect children and vulnerable people.
We oppose the amendment for the reasons I have given. It is technically flawed, and would create yet another unconscionable and unacceptable anomaly. Were the hon. Gentleman to push the amendment to a vote, our recommendation to the House would be to reject it. The House has heard the points that he has made, and he has heard me accept that there are anomalies and say that they will be considered by the sexual offences review. In the light of that, and of the amendment's obvious technical flaws, I hope that he will withdraw it.

Dr. Harris: Throughout the Minister's reply, he did not accept that the current sentencing provisions are discriminatory: he said that they are anomalous. They are clearly anomalous, but does he accept that they are discriminatory? A 22-year-old man who is convicted for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of 15 faces a two-year maximum sentence, whereas a man of 22 who has unlawful anal intercourse with a young male of 15 can be given life imprisonment. If all the other circumstances of the case are broadly similar, does the Minister think that such disproportionality based only on the different sexuality of the two men is acceptable? Is it not discriminatory?
I shall give the Minister an opportunity to intervene to explain whether the Government accept that the present sentencing provisions discriminate against homosexuals. If he remains silent, it is difficult for people to have confidence that the review will deal with such unjustifiable discrimination.

Mr. Boateng: I do not want to be churlish so early in the proceedings, but I thought that I had made it clear that the purpose of the review is to address undoubted anomalies in the legislation. Among those anomalies is the obvious discrimination in the sentencing legislation, and we are addressing those issues. We have asked the review body to deal with them, and we shall reflect on the outcome of the review. It is right that we should do that.
We should recognise the importance of approaching this matter holistically and rationally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are acting in good faith on this matter so as to ensure a proper debate and discussion of the issues and anomalies that he has identified with some skill.

Dr. Harris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) In section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (buggery)—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1), there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1D) below"; and
(b) after subsection (1C), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(1D) No proceedings shall be taken under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party has at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen.


( ) In section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecency between men)—

(a) at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words
"(1) Subject to subsection (2) below"; and
(b) at the end, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 20, at end insert
';and after subsection (11) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
( ) No proceedings for any offence under subsection (5) above which consists of committing a homosexual act shall be commenced against a person under the age of sixteen where the other party had at the time of the commission of the offence attained the age of sixteen.".'.

Dr. Harris: I intend to brief, because other hon. Members want to contribute, and I shall leave it to them to develop some of the points. The amendment deals with discrimination in the culpability, chargeability, prosecutability, convictability, sentenceability and imprisonability of the younger person for consensual, illegal acts.
Clause 1 seeks to reduce the age of consent for homosexual sex—which we support. It will ensure that, in many circumstances, although not all, homosexual sex above the age of 16 is legal between two consenting people. However, glaring discrimination remains, because the younger person whom we are seeking to protect through these sexual offences measures is made a criminal by virtue of the same Act that makes him a victim. The provisions of the clause could be amended by this or a similar amendment.
There are significant jurisprudential problems, and it is important that the Government accept the effect of the amendment. There are problems with the philosophy of criminalising a victim. We also have duties under the European convention on human rights. It is difficult to ensure that offenders are appropriately brought to book when the people who may be able to report offences are subject to criminal prosecution for the same acts that have made them a victim. Surely that will deter people from either seeking help or resorting to the impact of the law. The lack of a provision such as the one I suggest is a glaring omission in the Bill.
4.30 pm
A girl who has unlawful sexual intercourse committed against her when she is under 16 cannot be charged with the offence. At the end of the last century, the Tyrell case, which is quite well known in case law, showed that she could not be successfully prosecuted—even if she was the instigator—for aiding and abetting the offence. I consider that entirely appropriate: men, especially older men, must take responsibility for their actions, and must not be able to pass off age-of-consent offences as the responsibility of the younger party. It is vital for that anomaly to be removed. I use the word "vital" again for the benefit of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
In the Sutherland judgment, the European Commission of Human Rights said that part of the problem with British law was the provision whereby the younger party was

criminalised, and the effect of that criminalisation was disproportionate to whatever society wished to achieve. I think that both sides of the age-of-consent argument will agree that the anomaly must be removed, that we must decriminalise victims of the offence and that this is the right legislative opportunity for such a move. We can act now, in Committee, or at least at some point during the Bill's passage. That will achieve the Government's two aims, which—as both the Secretary of State and the Minister have eloquently conveyed—are equality and the protection of young people. I ask the Government at least to take on board an amendment such as this.

Mr. David Borrow: Unlike my speech on Second Reading, this speech will be brief.
I support the amendment for a number of reasons. Since 1967, legislation on this subject has always started from the standpoint that any sexual activity between males is illegal and wrong; it has merely decriminalised activity in certain regards. It has never introduced an age of consent in the sense that is recognised in the case of heterosexual relationships. That applies to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and to this Bill. The amendment would introduce the protections for the younger party in consensual sex between someone below the age of consent and someone above that age that already exist for heterosexuals.
Twenty-odd years ago, I saw a booklet produced by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which dealt with the discrimination in the gamut of laws affecting gay men. The issue is complex, and I do not suggest that the Bill is necessarily the right way in which to put things right. I also realise that Ministers are conducting a sexual offences review, during which a number of the problems and anomalies will be examined. However, following the Euan Sutherland decision the Government promised to amend the law in two ways. That is why we are considering the Bill.
The first way in which the law needed to be amended related to the age at which it became an offence to engage in sexual activity. That is why we are equalising the age of consent at 16 in England and Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland. Secondly—this has not been referred to generally, although the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has referred to it—there was the penalising and criminalising of the person who is under the age of consent. It is essential that, if we are to respond properly to the Euan Sutherland judgment, we ensure that the Bill deals not only with the equalisation of the age of concept, but with the criminalisation of those under the age of consent. I will leave it there.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I trespass into the minutiae of the discussion with some diffidence because, unlike the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), I have not made a detailed study of the case law and the consequences thereof.
I have three points to make. The first is that there is a curious ambiguity around the word "consensual" The proper meaning of the word is that there is an equal readiness by both parties to indulge in the behaviour, yet there is an understandable and proper anxiety that, where one party is older than the other—and particularly where the younger one is below the age of 16—there is a serious


risk of pressure of varying forms being put on the younger one, so that, although the appearance is given of consent, in practice, it is a reluctant consent.

Mr. Borrow: Given that there would be pressure by the older person on someone under the age of 16 to become involved in sex, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that criminalising the younger party in that relationship would make it less likely that he would feel able to report and to seek the protection of the legislation, and that he would be more likely not to report the offence because of the fear that he had committed a criminal offence and could be charged? Instead of protecting the younger person, the measure would make it more difficult for him to be protected.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently, tries to rush me through my remarks. I was going to move on to that matter. It is important to be clear that the term "consensual" carries within it the ambiguity that, where there is a disparity in age, the younger person may appear to have given consent, but, if he had been genuinely free to decide on his behaviour, might have refused that consent.
On my second point, I share the hon. Gentleman's view that to criminalise the younger party when he is under 16 for such behaviour—which allegedly was consensual, but may not have been—makes it harder for him to seek the protection and advice that we all wish to make available to him. That is the view of most of the professional counsellors and services working in the sector.

Mr. Swayne: That view must be wrong then.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has a cynical view of the professions. Sometimes he is not altogether unjustified, but if we are to proceed at all rationally, we have to allow that people who have devoted most of their working lives to assisting young people to work their way through the complexities and confusions of their sexual behaviour probably have a superior contribution to make; it is certainly superior to the one that I make. I am prepared to accept their view that criminalising the behaviour of the younger, perhaps reluctant, party does not help to solve the problem. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment.
The third point is a more general one. It goes back to a debate that the Minister of State, Home Office had in front of what in those days, before the change of name, was called the all-party group for children. The group, of which I am an officer, believes strongly that girls below the age of consent who are engaged in prostitution should be regarded as victims of abuse and not as criminals in some conniving way. I very much hope that there will be a change in the law to that effect.
From time to time, the law has a useful declaratory purpose, but its interpretation is also important. Today's debate provides an opportunity to improve the law and I support the amendment. Police forces and prosecution services have become much more aware of the dangers of criminalising young people, and only a few prosecutions take place.
Finally, we talk rightly and properly about protecting young people from predatory behaviour by older people. Sadly, however, there is an increasing number of severely

damaged young people whose only recourse, when looking for excitement, comfort or whatever, is to try to seduce older people sexually. It is important to put on the record the fact that teachers and other adults are often put in a difficult position by young people to whom they are trying to extend care and affection when, because of the damage that they have endured during their young lives, their response is to try to titillate the older person into going too far. When we talk about protection, we should recognise that older people—particularly when the opportunity for blackmail or damaging someone's career is taken into account—need protection, too.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said that he chose his words carefully when he said that it was vital that the amendment should be carried so that the anomaly that he identified would be addressed. I shall use the same word. I think that it is vital that the anomaly should remain and I shall explain why.
The anomaly that the hon. Gentleman identified is that a girl under 16 who has consensual sex with a man over 16 is not prosecuted for having given her consent and indulged in that illegal activity, whereas a boy under 16 who has consensual sex with a man, or indeed a boy over 16, may be prosecuted for having given his consent. That is an important distinction and an important principle because it shows that the law continues to identify a clear difference between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity—between a girl under 16 exploring her sexual desires and a boy under 16 exploring an unnatural sexual desire. It is important that the law should send a message that for a boy under 16 to explore sexuality in that way is not acceptable, is illegal and carries a penalty. We should send the message that the two life styles are not equivalent.
4.45 pm
I realise, that I am now treading on the subject matter of the debate on Second Reading, but I think that we should revisit the principles dealt with in both amendment No. 2 and the earlier debate. In the Second Reading debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House—although rather more Labour Members than Opposition Members—accepted the principle that one's sexual proclivity is fixed and determined, and that one can have no influence over it. I accept entirely the experiences described by Labour Members in supporting the principle. I do not dispute their experience, or say that they are wrong on the principle, but they painted an incomplete picture.
The experiences that were described in the earlier debate may be a valid description of the experience of some boys, whose sexual appetites and proclivities are fixed. Equally, I am aware of young men—young boys—under 16 who experience particular unnatural desires at a tender age, approaching 16, but are ashamed of those desires. They are appalled by their desires and repress them, and go on to outgrow them and live a perfectly normal life. They are ashamed and appalled by their desires because of the social pressures exerted by their peers, who say that it is not natural behaviour or something of which society approves.
Maintenance of the anomaly will therefore play an important role in sending a clear message, from the law and from society, that such behaviour is not a normal or


an acceptable way of life. The anomaly should therefore be maintained—so that the law's clear message is that it is an unnatural expression of human behaviour for young boys under 16 to explore their homosexual attitudes; that it is in no way an equally valid life style; and that young men are protected by the law from such exploration. Some young men will therefore never explore it, but outgrow it.

Mr. James Clappison: This has so far been an interesting debate. I should make it clear now that my remarks are very much personal ones. For Opposition Members the matters dealt with in amendment No. 2—as with the other matters we have considered in the Bill—are, the subject of a free vote. My remarks are therefore only a personal contribution to the debate.
I make it clear that my approach to the amendments is guided by a wish to give the strongest protection possible to children and young people. I have judged the entirety of the Bill by that same criterion. As a background to the amendments, I should say that, although the Bill aims to protect youngsters of 16 and 17 from abuse of a position of trust by an older person, it is fast emerging, as we consider the Bill, that that protection is far from comprehensive, that it contains many loopholes and anomalies, and that it could go much further than it does. That is most true of youngsters under 16, who are the subject matter of amendment No. 2. The Bill and its provisions on abuse of trust do nothing at all for youngsters under 16.
In the previous debate, I listened carefully to the Minister's comments on wanting to protect vulnerable people. I join him in that wish, and shall certainly support him in any reasonable endeavours to realise it. However, he will have to face the fact that those under 16, who are most in need of protection—the younger the person concerned, the greater the need for protection—will receive no protection from the Bill's provision. That is the criterion by which I judge the amendments.
The Utting report forms the background to today's debate. That catalogue of abuse and misery—which was chronicled by hon. Members on Second Reading—predominantly concerned youngsters under 16. That is the background against which I set the debates on the amendments.
Will the amendments help to protect youngsters under 16? It is obvious that the Committee is moving towards 16 as the age of consent. I think that it is a mistake, that 18 is more appropriate and that 16 is far too young. However, we must be realistic. This is a serious matter—we are talking about protecting young people—and we must see the best that can be done in the circumstances.
When the Bill is enacted and 16 becomes the age of consent, sexual relationships involving youngsters under 16 will be unlawful, as they are now. As the law will then stand, it will be unlawful for a person over 16 to have a sexual relationship with someone under 16. As I understand it, where such a relationship takes place, both persons will be involved in the unlawful act.
The amendment proposes that, in such a case, no proceedings shall be commenced against the party who is under 16. The argument made by the amendment's

supporters is that the person under 16 should be regarded not as the perpetrator, but as a victim. I know that feelings run high on that matter, and it is perfectly possible to have strongly held and legitimate views on the subject. However, it is important to judge the position of the 16-year-old against the criterion that I set out at the beginning of my speech—the need to protect them from older people.
The argument from the amendment's supporters is that the removal of any prospect of criminal proceedings for the younger party will make it more likely that the criminal offence committed by the older party will come to light. As has been said, in such cases, the sexual relationship is consensual. If it is not consensual, that is an entirely different matter and other serious criminal charges will be involved. I appreciate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the nature of consensuality.
In cases where the younger party has been a consensual party in the activity, if he comes to realise that what happened was wrong and unlawful, he has to face the prospect that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution—something that may even be pointed out to him by the older party concerned. I say that there is a theoretical risk of prosecution because it would appear that, in such cases, the younger party is only rarely prosecuted, although the position is not entirely clear.
I am not sure how much we should weigh that fact in the balance. On the one hand, it could be said that there is no need to change the law as the amendment proposes because such prosecutions are hardly ever brought. On the other hand, there remains the possibility of prosecution, however remote it may be. We must ask whether it is good to have a law in place that is only rarely enforced. For someone under 16, even a theoretical risk of prosecution is something that that party must take into account and be influenced by. I suppose that, the more law-abiding the person concerned, the more they would take that risk into account.
I would like a strong, credible and well-enforced legal framework put in place to protect young people. I am extremely keen to protect young people from unlawful sexual activity, and anal intercourse in particular, involving older people, especially when the older person is substantially more mature and inclined to exploit the younger person's youth and inexperience. Sadly, there are such people around. For anyone over 16 to commit the offence with an under-16-year-old is a serious matter, but it is even more serious when the older person is perhaps 27, 32 or even in his 40s.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to the case of Tyrell and the well-established legal position in respect of under-16-year-old girls in the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse. I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks on that subject. The low maximum sentence of two years for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl of under 16 is a glaring anomaly in our law that has been there for many years. I make no party point, as the anomaly remained under Conservative Governments as well as Labour.
The Minister's remarks had an especial poignancy for me, as I can remember having exactly the same debate in proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill. We put


exactly the same remarks to the Minister who was in charge of that Bill and he in many ways accepted the spirit of our point that two years was far too low.

Dr. Harris: I saw the Minister nodding vigorously, as he did in Committee upstairs, at the suggestion that the maximum sentence of two years was too low; but one must be realistic. The offence is widespread, as we can see from the number of pregnancies, abortions and births among under-16-year-olds. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should lock up fathers—irresponsible and law-breaking as they may be—for up to five years, he may be going down a path that is the reverse of what we want to do.

Mr. Clappison: Given that the law has become so anomalous, with a maximum sentence for indecent assault of 10 years and for unlawful sexual intercourse of only two years, it is hardly surprising that the law is not being as vigorously enforced as it might be. I think that the latter offence is a very serious matter, especially when the older person is much more mature and experienced and is taking advantage of the girl in exactly the way that I have described someone taking advantage of a boy.
The Minister's predecessor said almost a year ago that there would be a review of the law on unlawful sexual intercourse and that the Government would put it right but that they needed to consider everything in the round and consult the experts. Here we are, a year later, having the same debate, and the law has not changed.
The legal authority of Tyrell goes back to the late 19th century. That well-known authority established that a girl under 16 cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse, since the offence was created for her protection. I believe that there is merit in considering to what extent it is appropriate to take that approach for offences involving anal intercourse with a boy under 16. That is my personal view. We need to exercise some care in how we explore that approach, but I want to do what is best to protect the young person concerned.
5 pm
We have to explore the matter with some care. It is my understanding that the amendment differs from the position established by the Tyrell case. Tyrell established that a girl under 16 commits no offence, whereas the amendment establishes that no proceedings should be brought. I do no more than note that there is a difference between those two positions. We need to be clear how the proposal fits in with other types of sexual offences.
It would appear that, even if the amendment were accepted, two youngsters who were both below the age of consent would still be liable to face proceedings. That is important, and we need to preserve that position. There should be no question of our moving towards a de facto reduction in the age of consent below 16. We should be concerned about protecting the younger person from abuse by the older person. The law in respect of unlawful sexual intercourse with under-16-year-olds needs to remain in place. The protection aspect needs to be borne in mind when we consider anal intercourse between someone under and someone over 16 years of age.
We need to be able to deal with every case, and we must think carefully about some of the rare and unusual circumstances that might arise.

Mr. Swayne: Has not my hon. Friend raised the possibility of a rare and unusual case in which there would be an incentive for a young man under the age of 16, who was seeking to explore his homosexual desires, to select a partner over the age of 16? He would then be absolved from any wrongdoing, whereas, if he selected someone who, like him, was under 16, he would be committing an illegal act.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. In that case, the law should protect the under-16-year-old from himself. The person over 16 should be aware of that and should face condign penalties for taking advantage of an under-16-year-old who was in that frame of mind.
I am concerned about the message that we might be sending. We must protect under-16-year-olds, not reduce the age of consent any further. As I said, I am concerned generally that we have reduced the age of consent too far and too fast. We have introduced one reduction in the age of consent hot on the heels of another. If the amendment is adopted, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, there has to be vigorous enforcement of that aspect of the law. An amendment like this has to go hand in hand with a vigorous approach and a strong and credible legal framework.
I am worried about the apparent change in the number of prosecutions brought against people over 21 for offences of buggery with males of under 16 years of age. There is at least a coincidence between a big reduction in the number of such prosecutions and the reduction in the age of consent. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that the numbers of prosecutions of over-21-year-olds for buggery with under-16s in 1993 and 1994—before the age of consent had been reduced—were 293 and 291 respectively. Since then, there has been a significant collapse in the number of such prosecutions. In 1995—the first year in which 18 was the age of consent—there were 151 such prosecutions; in 1996 there were 73; and in 1997 there 103.

Mr. Mike Hall: What has that to do with the amendment?

Mr. Clappison: It has everything to do with the amendment—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Sedentary interventions from Members on the Front Bench do not help the debate.

Mr. Clappison: If we are to make a change in such a sensitive area of the law, affecting the legal position of under-16-year-olds, we must make sure that it goes hand in hand with vigorous enforcement of the law against older people minded to have sexual relations with younger people. That is vital. The figures show that a big change happened between 1993–94, when the age of consent was 21, and the period 1995 to 1997, when the age of consent was 18. The number of people over 21 prosecuted for having sex with people under 16 fell from 291 in 1994 to 73 in 1996 and 103 in 1997.
I want to ensure that any change such as is proposed in the amendment will not be accompanied by a change in the priority given to those prosecutions. If the amendment is accepted, the law must be enforced vigorously, because we should do all that we can to protect those under 16 from the attentions of those over 21.
Speaking purely personally, I hope that the law will be applied much more vigorously if the amendment is accepted. However, there is merit in exploring the extent to which the amendment would afford greater protection to people under 16. That is the criterion by which I judge it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): There has been general, although not universal, approbation in this debate for the principle behind the amendment, which was expounded by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Most hon. Members who have spoken have found it unacceptable that the person under 16 who engages in a homosexual act or in an act of buggery, in which the older party is 16 or older, should end up being criminalised, instead of being regarded as the victim.
I am glad to note that general view. I am also glad to have been informed that a number of children's charities are worried about the degree to which under-16-year-olds, if we leave the law as it is, will end up being considered to have committed a criminal offence, rather than being regarded as victims. I am told by my officials that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnados and the Children's Society have all said—and have allowed me to say in public—that they would support the decriminalisation of the younger party in those circumstances.
Several other anomalies have been debated, both upstairs in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Although we are seeking equality in terms of the age of consent, the law starts from very different points for males and females. Also, some aspects of the European convention on human rights, and other factors, mean that we do not start from a position that is wholly symmetrical, and I doubt whether we will end at such a position. We consider that it is appropriate for most of the remaining anomalies to be examined in the review of sexual offences that my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier.
However—to return to the amendment and the parallel proposals for Scotland and Northern Ireland—in the interests of protecting children, we think that it would be sensible to take action along the lines proposed, in the course of the Bill's passage through the House. We accept the principle behind the amendment. We also acknowledge the cautious point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who said that we must be careful and fully explore how the amendment would work.
Therefore, if it is acceptable to the Committee, I propose that we examine the principle behind the amendments between now and the time when the Bill comes back on Report. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will have discussions with the hon. Members who tabled the amendment, if they so wish, and those

discussions may also include the hon. Member for Hertsmere or any other hon. Member who might wish to take part. The aim will be to produce wording that is acceptable and technically competent and meets what I think is the will of the Committee. Those amendments can then be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. If the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon disagrees with them, he can table his own amendments, on which the House will have an opportunity to vote at that stage.
I hope that that is an acceptable way of proceeding in circumstances of general—not universal—approbation for what is proposed. We must however ensure that the wording is right and that the offences that we are eliminating deal only with this mischief and do not raise other mischief in their wake.

Dr. Harris: I give the Secretary of State a very warm welcome for those remarks, and thank him for his consideration of the broad principle. I am the first to accept that the drafting of the amendments is almost certainly incorrect. Indeed, we had such trouble drafting an amendment to pertain to Northern Ireland that it was not considered suitable to be selected for debate. So, of course we understand the need to return to the matter on Report. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) will join me in recognising that the work on considering the anomaly and bringing forward suggestions was not really done by us, but by organisations outside the House. I thank them for their work, and in doing so, thank the Secretary of State once again for his words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—

EXCEPTIONS

'( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) (offences in England and Wales) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies)—

(a) after the words "(a)(iv)" there shall be inserted the words "and (vii)"; and
(b) after the word "over;" there shall be inserted—
"(bb) paragraph (a)(v) and (vi) does not apply where the other party to the offence was 16 or over".'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) (offences in Scotland) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies) for the word "18" there shall be substituted the word "16".'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
'( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 3 (offences in Northern Ireland) of Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (sexual offences to which part I applies)—

(a) for "(d)" there shall be substituted "(i) and (iii)"; and
(b) after the word "over;" there shall be inserted—
"(bb) paragraphs (b)(ii) and (d) do not apply where the other party to the offence was 17 or over".'.

Mr. Allan: The Home Secretary gave a very pleasing and gracious response to the previous amendment, which


I hope will set the tone for debate on another simple group of amendments, which would make changes consequential to the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16.
In preparation for considering this matter, I looked at the words of wisdom of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who spoke for the then Opposition on the Sex Offenders Bill in 1997. He must look back on those debates in Committee as halcyon days compared with working with the internal machinations of the Welsh Labour party. In Committee and on Report on the 1997 Bill, the right hon. Gentleman moved similar amendments to the ones that we are considering in trying to deal with the issue of offences between homosexuals aged 16 and 17 and whether they should appear on the sex offenders register. The response from the then Conservative Minister, Timothy Kirkhope, implied that the amendments should be rejected, primarily because the age of consent had not at that point been lowered. He argued:
I am aware of the arguments for reducing the age of homosexual consent to 16, but the fact remains that Parliament has decided that for homosexual offences the age of 18 must remain the threshold. That being so, I am not prepared to lift registration where the offence is committed against someone who is a minor for those purposes."—[Official Report, 25 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 241.]
If clause 1 is agreed unamended, and the Bill subsequently enacted, the lawful age of homosexual consent will become 16. Therefore, individuals of 16 and 17 years old will no longer be minors for the purposes of buggery and indecency offences. I argue strongly that we run the risk of putting on the sex offenders register people who are committing consensual, non-criminal acts. That very much works against the register's principle, which is to be careful about who it targets. It is an active register which targets people who are likely to commit further criminal offences. It would make no sense to register people who have committed acts that are no longer illegal and who represent no danger to the public.
We hope that the Government will see the logic of the amendments and the risk that they may run if they are not prepared to accept them or similar ones. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I am perfectly happy to concede that drafting errors may render the amendments unacceptable to the Minister at this stage. I hope that he will consider the principle of the issue: whether a sex offenders register, which I think everyone supports, and which is designed to be active and to enable the probation service, the police and other agencies to monitor people, should include those who have committed an act that is no longer a crime, particularly 16 or 17-year-olds whose acts will be legal subsequent to the passing of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively and at least consider the anomaly, so that the sex offenders register hits the right targets. That was very much the spirit of the comments of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The amendments would boost the sex offenders register and treat people fairly, ensuring specifically that those who should no longer be on the register are omitted from it.

Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) says. I appreciate the way in which he put his case. Amendment No. 4 would

introduce further changes to the age limits for exception to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. Clause 1 is about the equalisation of the age of consent, and not about amending other legislation such as the Sex Offenders Act, unless that directly follows as a result of the change in the age of consent. The rationale behind registration under the Sex Offenders Act is based on the age of majority or adulthood, which is commonly accepted as 18 years of age. It is not based on the age of consent. Therefore, I do not find myself compelled by the hon. Gentleman's logic to accept his amendment.
The Committee will find under offences that attract age-limit exceptions to registration in schedule 1 to the 1997 Act, that offenders who are guilty of indecent assault on a woman and on a man do not have to register if the victim is 18 years old or over and the sentence is under 30 months. Offenders guilty of assault with intent to commit buggery must register only if the victim is under 18 years old. Such provisions relate to girls as well as boys, where the age of consent is already 16.
The hon. Member for Hallam will see that this matter is not about a form of discrimination between boys and girls, men and women, or their sexuality. It arises from the different bases of the register and of the age of consent. One is about majority and adulthood, the other about the age at which it is possible to consent to a sexual act. For that reason, I am unable to accept the amendment.
As the hon. Member readily recognises, the amendment is technically flawed. Although we could not accept it for that reason, we cannot accept it anyway due to the separate basis of the Sex Offenders Act. To amend the Act as he suggests would go beyond what is necessary for amending the age of consent, and open up wider issues concerning the Sex Offenders Act. We do not consider this Bill as a vehicle for piecemeal amendments to the Sex Offenders Act, which is already subject to review. To make the age of consent of the other party a determining factor for registration would mark a new departure in the Sex Offenders Act. Although I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, and give an undertaking to refer it in substance to the sex offenders review, I am not able to accept it for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful for the Minister's final comments about considering the substance of the amendment in the sex offenders review. That is entirely appropriate.
I sometimes feel that we are talking about entirely different subjects. It is certainly my understanding that there is a distinction between the treatment of men who have had relations with girls aged 16 and 17, and those who have had consensual relations with men aged 16 and 17. To consider that within the sex offenders review may be the most sensible way to proceed, given that hon. Members wish to move on to the clause stand part debate. I want, however, to put on the record that I am not content that we have understood entirely the anomalies, and shall seek to pursue them further with the Minister in his review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I believe that this is the third or fourth time that I have


spoken on this issue. Our debates on the subject are becoming rather like the open and closed-list debates that we had some weeks ago, and I have a shrewd idea that I shall be defeated in the Division Lobby again.
I pay tribute to the sincerity of the arguments that we have heard on the issue throughout the debate. I hope that although many of us may disagree with the Government's proposal, we shall not be regarded as antagonistic to the homosexual gay community, because that is not our intention.
Clause 1 obviously raises the fundamental question whether the age of consent should be reduced to 16. I repeat that Opposition Members will have an entirely free vote on that decision. I shall try to review some of the evidence, but, in doing so, I shall express my personal views.
In 1994, I voted for the age of consent to be reduced from 21 to 18. Eighteen is the age of majority, and it seemed to me sensible that young men should make up their own minds at that age. I did not go back on that judgment. There are some who think that even that went too far, but I agreed with the Bishop of York, who at the time said that it was a sensible step and allowed the evidence to be assessed. The question is whether, after less than five years, we should move to the next step of reducing the age from 18 to 16. My view is that we should not.
It is not altogether possible to separate the principle of reducing the age from the protection for young people set out later in the Bill. I say that because, for many of us—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested earlier—the protection of 16 to 18-year-olds is the acid test. If the position of 16 to 18-year-olds is made worse, more precarious, we should recognise that and say so.
In other words, I do not find the argument on the standardisation of ages for heterosexual and homosexual sex to be remotely the end of the debate. The crucial argument, surely, is that the House must be convinced that, if it takes this action, a group of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 will not be put at more risk. That, it seems to me, is the acid test. That may be an inconvenient argument, and it may not fit in with people's views on standardisation. However, it seems to me that the protection of young people must remain a proper—I would argue, a paramount—concern of the House.
That is why, in June 1998, I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Those concerned abuse by an older person who was in a position—in his terminology—of authority, influence or trust. That is why the Government have now been persuaded to introduce a new offence where a person aged 18 or over has sexual intercourse with a person under that age if the person aged 18 or over is in a position of trust.
The first question that is raised for someone like myself is whether that protection is adequate. In Committee upstairs, the Minister of State—I have read what he said—has sought to set down four principles on the way in which that protection will be offered. In effect, he has limited the group of young people who are entitled to protection and those who are not. In Committee, and again

today, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has demonstrated that we believe that there are some worrying gaps and that a worrying number of groups appear to be excluded, including members of youth organisations and members of Church and religious organisations.
However, a more specific point troubled me when I related the legislation to a case that I knew something about, and which I quoted in June—that of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled "Bishop of Medway", who was convicted in the 1970s of offences against young people. I drew attention to that case in the House of Commons. Then, in 1998, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. In other words, he has been pursuing a career of abuse year after year after year. He is a prime example of the type of person that we are up against and need to recognise. However, it is by no means clear to me that the cover that he gave himself on the last occasion, in the period leading to his 1998 conviction—teaching young people first aid at a sports centre—would remotely have come into the definition of protection that has been provided in the Bill.
My next point is much more general. We all remember the words of Sir William Utting, the former head of the social services inspectorate at the Department of Health and Social Security. He served with me; he was an outstanding director. He said that persistent sexual abusers were a scourge of childhood. He said that their numbers were difficult to estimate, but that each one who adopted a lifetime career would amass hundreds of victims. However, his main argument was as follows:
Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children. They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees".
In other words, seeking to obtain trust is the characteristic of their operations. That is what they try to do. That is the threat that they pose. It is very difficult to distinguish one group from another in the way that the legislation seeks to do.
Therefore, the issue that goes to the heart of the Bill is as follows. We know that some people will want to take advantage of a reduction in the age of consent. We also know something about the extent of the problem. In our last debate, on 25 January 1999—column 33 of Hansard—I referred to a study edited by Donald West of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which found that 12 per cent. of women and 8 per cent. of men reported that they had been sexually abused as children. We are therefore talking about a very large number indeed. My concern is that we risk making the position worse, not better.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am certain that it is no part of my right hon. Friend's case—or that of any hon. Member—to suggest that every homosexual is an abuser or anything like that, but underlying the statistics that he mentioned is another statistic, which is not often quoted in the House. Although the vast majority of abusers are male, extraordinarily, 40 per cent. of those abused in children's homes in this country are male.

Sir Norman Fowler: I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I emphasise what he said at the start of his intervention. I certainly do not wish to make a generalised allegation. I am talking about risk and our responsibility in the House. My question is whether that risk will be increased—whether we are making the position worse by taking the proposed step. I fear that we are.
Obviously, I understand the argument for equality and standardisation of ages, but I hope that it is our duty to provide maximum protection for young people, and I hope that that duty is also recognised.
It is not only Members of the House and lobby groups who should be heard on this subject. The public have a right to be heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who I see in his place, made a much-admired speech on Second Reading. It was so good that even Alastair Campbell has publicly praised it. I am not sure whether that is the kiss of political death for my hon. Friend, but there is no question about the quality of his speech, to which I also pay tribute. However, on one point I disagreed profoundly with my hon. Friend. When considering the opinion polls on this issue, he said, in effect, that the slave trade would have been supported by opinion polls. I assume that that meant that we should disregard opinion polls on the issue that is before us. With respect, that is an extravagant use of the tactic of guilt by association. The issues are not remotely comparable.
5.30 pm
I certainly agree that we should not try to govern by opinion polls. I say that with authority because no one could accuse the previous Conservative Government of slavishly seeking opinion poll approval. If we did, we were remarkably unsuccessful at it. However, when we find opinion poll evidence pointing in the way that it undoubtedly does in this instance, the House of Commons should at least take pause to consider.
In 1994, a Gallup poll suggested that 71 per cent. of those polled supported the status quo for the age of consent at 21. However, when the NOP divided the question and provided a choice between 18 and 16, a small majority then favoured 18. Only 13 per cent. favoured the further reduction to 16. That opposition to that further stage has remained clear in opinion polls.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that there is another disparity? In the case of the slave trade, opinions were being expressed about what conduct should or should not be directed to other adults. In this instance, those who are polled are expressing opinions about what should or should not be done to children, in many cases their children, in respect of whom they have rights until they are 18.

Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I have read what he has had to say in debate. I agree with him and it is a point that I shall come to.
The opposition to going further from 18 to 16 has remained clear in opinion polls. The most interesting of the later polls was the Gallup poll last August, which was conducted after the House of Commons had voted to lower the age of consent to 16 and the House of Lords had voted the other way.
When those polled were asked whether they personally thought that the age of consent for homosexual men should be 16 or 18, 65 per cent. said 18 and only 26 per cent. said 16. I now come to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). In my view, when it comes to such issues the public are a sensible judge. I tried to set out the experience that we had at the Department of Health when we were running the AIDS campaign in the late 1980s. In spite of all the

predictions that there would be a backlash against gays or homosexuals, there was not one. There was none of that. The public accepted, understood and supported the campaign which we undertook. They showed their common sense and maturity on these issues.
The same public are expressing their views in the opinion polls that are now taking place. We cannot say that they are mature in one respect and then say, when it comes to something that is inconvenient to one's argument, that they show an immaturity and fail to appreciate the arguments. I would take the general rule of trusting the public. In this respect, trusting the public takes on board the fact that the public feel genuine doubt, have a questioning attitude and feel opposition to reducing the age further. It is the same public who are making their views clear about reducing the age further from 18 to 16.
There is one further point, and it has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East. Many of the people whose views are being sought are parents. They have concerns about their own children, the young people whom they know best. I believe that parents have a right to be heard, and I think that they are right on this issue. Far from rejecting public opinion, we should recognise its strength and sincerity. We reduced the age of consent to 18 years less than five years ago and I do not believe that the case has been made out to reduce it further.

Mr. Brazier: I was thinking about an old adage when I was sitting in the train earlier. It is the old joke about the man who dreamt that he was making a speech in the House of Commons and woke up to find that he had done so. I ask myself why we are here again in the Chamber debating this issue so fervently. We are here again because the House of Lords gave us a second opportunity to think about it. Despite the overwhelming vote last time round, it seems profoundly right that the House of Commons should think again.
Those of us who have spoken out against equalisation, as it is called, of the age of consent have been repeatedly accused by Members who have formed a lobby, at least outside Parliament, of prejudice and ignorance. It is curious that we have not only public opinion on our side but a substantial body of scientific evidence, to which I shall return. Above all, we have on our side of the argument all of the world's great religions. In that respect, the most recent contributor to the debate was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who made the profound comment that we must think about the signal that we are sending to the country at large. Of course, we must make up our own minds; we are in the House of Commons to make up our own minds and not simply take account of others' views.
I have no wish to hate or dislike anybody, or to victimise anybody. The younger brother of my great-grandfather, as a student at Oxford, was a homosexual. He was afraid that he was being pursued by the police. There was no evidence subsequently that that was the case. He went into personal panic, fled across southern England and committed suicide in the most horrible circumstances. I have no wish to see anyone victimised or pursued for any particular reason.
I believe that it is wrong to lower the age of consent to 16 and that one day views in the House of Commons will change. I believe the country to be right and the views expressed in the previous debate to be wrong.
I shall allude briefly to the parallel that was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) with slavery. I believe it to be a disgraceful reflection on the people of this country. In 1863, President Lincoln was fighting a war which cost a far higher proportion of blood and lives in his country than the first world war cost in our country. That war was being fought to abolish slavery.
The President received a letter signed by thousands of Lancashire cotton workers. The comment was made in the letter that the effect of the American civil war and deprivation in Liverpool, as a result of the disruption to the cotton trade, was causing the most unbelievable hardship, even to the extent that many of the children of those who had signed the letter were dying of starvation. None the less, they, as the working class people of Liverpool, felt so strongly about the abolition of slavery that they believed that Abraham Lincoln was absolutely right to prosecute the war. He was reduced to tears by the letter and abandoned his Government's business for half a day to compose a worthy reply. So much for public opinion in this country on slavery, and back to the business of today.
I wish to focus on whether homosexual activity is a matter of choice or whether it is somehow pre-ordained. Of course, activity that is consented to is always a matter of choice. However, there are those in the homosexual lobby, supported by a growing group outside it, who are arguing that activity is a matter of choice but orientation is pre-ordained.
I have considerable respect for the British Medical Association and I have used its reports in many other contexts. However, it is the latest group to write in a rather generalised letter to Members of Parliament that the weight of scientific evidence is that homosexual or heterosexual orientation is decided long before the age of 16, and so it is wrong to focus on a potential change of orientation between 16 and 18.
There is a substantial body of scientific evidence from all over the world that argues otherwise. I shall quote one study from a British source. As recently as 1992 King and McDonald, writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry, outlined a detailed study carried out on perhaps the most appropriate group of people—identical twins. Across a sample of identical twins in which one of the twins was homosexual, they found that in just under one quarter of the pairs of twins, the other twin was also homosexual. Surely there could be no more disturbing example. If a homosexual twin's own identical twin—genetically absolutely identical—is not also homosexual, how can it possibly be genetically determined whether someone is homosexually or heterosexually inclined?

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the reality is perhaps neither all one case nor all the other? Does he accept that there may be some people who are genetically predetermined—physiologically, one might say—to be homosexuals when they mature? Does he also accept that although that may be true in some cases, in other cases people's experiences as young boys can determine whether they change from potential

heterosexuals to potential homosexuals? I hope that my hon. Friend is not committing himself to saying that it is all one way or all the other.

Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend anticipates my next few sentences. He has expressed the idea so clearly that I shall not repeat it. I am not arguing that no one is ever genetically determined to be homosexual or heterosexual. We do not know, and we probably will not know for decades. However, there can be little doubt that for a significant proportion—how large we do not know—sexual orientation is determined in their teens.
What the scientists tell us is reinforced by ordinary experience. Most of us know someone who experienced homosexual activity in his teens—I did not, myself, but I know a number of people who did—and subsequently decided not to adopt a homosexual orientation. I can think of one case in which the person is now happily married.
Many of us will have received the same letters on the issue from former homosexuals who have ceased to be homosexuals. I remember one letter from 15 former homosexuals, one of whom had the courage to come along on the day of the previous vote and sit in the Public Gallery. The testimony that that group provided was clear. Those men were attracted into homosexuality during their late teens by older males, and they want the protection of the law to make it a criminal offence for that to continue. There are always those who will break any law on sexual matters, but let us at least provide that measure of protection for those who are between the age of 16 and the age of majority.
I shall leave the House with this thought: the word "discrimination" has been used a great deal. Discrimination refers to what someone is. In my view, it cannot be applied coherently to what someone does. It is clearly wrong to discriminate against someone because of his skin colour. If one discriminates against someone because he chooses to do something, surely the onus is on the other side to argue that that discrimination is wrong. If one is recruiting a driving instructor, for example, it would be right to refuse to recruit someone whose driving licence was covered with offences.
Those who say that it is discrimination to treat homosexual offences separately from heterosexual offences must rest their argument on the basis that homosexual acts are unavoidable. Obviously, the acts themselves are not unavoidable. I have argued that the orientation is not unavoidable in every case. It is right for us to give those aged between 16 and 18 a measure of legal protection to decide where they stand on the matter.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury and so many other religious leaders in this country—Cardinal Basil Hume, the chief rabbi and the previous chief rabbi—have argued, this is a matter that we should give young males a little longer to think about. I urge the House to vote against clause 1.

Mr. Allan: I shall speak briefly in support of clause 1.
It worries me when I hear the opinion polls argument trotted out on one side or the other. If we believe that something is correct, we must decide whether we are prepared to take a lead and explain the background to our thinking, or whether we back off at the first hurdle because it seems that some people disagree.
I remind the House that my party secured huge polls of 70 to 80 per cent. in favour of our policy of putting more money into education, but that did not translate into our winning general elections. It merely shows that the people polled say that they are in favour of education. I suspect that in polls on the issue under discussion, people are expressing their views on homosexuality, not giving detailed consideration to any change in the law.
We are debating not what people do, but changes in the criminal law. We must not become over-ambitious about our influence. We cannot tell people what they should or should not do in their bedrooms. All we can decide is at what point we make them criminals for a particular act.
No one has ever stood up and said, "My Government made me a homosexual"—to which the standard response, "If I give the Cabinet the wool, will they make me one too?" might be appropriate. At times, the debate verges on the point of saying that the Government are making people homosexual or not making them homosexual. In fact, the Government are deciding the point at which the criminal law starts and ends. We must be clear about that.
The change that would be brought about by clause 1 is consistent with the religious principles that many people hold dear, and with rational ideas. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an important speech in the previous debate in which he said that he could believe strongly that something was wrong on religious grounds, yet still not wish to make a criminal offence of it.
We must recognise the distinction between what we personally believe to be right or wrong—we all hold a multiplicity of views on that—and what we as a Parliament and as a nation consider should bring someone before a criminal court.
The rational grounds for supporting the change are bolstered by the support of many agencies that work with young people. We have heard the British Medical Association cited. Other organisations include the Royal College of Nursing. Barnados and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are unhappy with the existing criminal framework.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the British Medical Association reconciles its support for the measure with the injunction by the National Blood Service that no man who has ever had anal intercourse should be allowed to give blood? Surely there is some contradiction there.

Mr. Allan: I do not believe that there is any contradiction. We are being tempted, as we were on Second Reading, to speak about issues such as disease. We are discussing the criminal law, which decides what is or is not criminal. It is not criminal for people over 16 to smoke, but they are undoubtedly causing themselves medical harm. The fact that a particular activity may cause medical harm is not a reason to criminalise a person who chooses to engage in that activity. The British Medical Association believes that the present criminalisation of 16 and 17-year-olds makes it difficult to give them the health advice which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would want them to get.

Mr. John Townend: Why then do the Liberal Democrats support criminalising eating beef on the bone?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) did not pursue that issue.

Mr. Allan: I am happy not to pursue incorrect interventions.
We should understand today that we are confining ourselves to a clause which effectively changes the boundary of the criminal law. It will have no significant effect in terms of people's behaviour: we are not creating any more or any fewer homosexuals in our community by dint of this change; we are simply freeing a section of our community, who have reached the age of 16 and 17, who believe themselves to be homosexuals, and who engage in homosexual acts, from the burden of the criminal law which, currently, on no rational grounds, places them under threat of punishment.
Contrary to an earlier comment by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the last thing that anyone in such a position needs is a short, sharp shock in a young offenders institution. The idea that it is somehow an appropriate form of advice and assistance to threaten any youngster exploring his sexuality with a criminal and custodial offence betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how sexuality develops—a development which we should allow to continue beyond a sensible age of consent of 16. Clause 1 will provide a much more rational framework within which we can engage that debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I was much impressed by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He made a considered, intelligent and reasonable contribution on what is, for many of us, a difficult subject. Those of us who hold passionate views on the subject often find ourselves being pilloried. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, we are often accused of prejudice and all the rest of it.
There is a point in being able, at least in the House, to speak out and articulate one's views. The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield particularly mentioned, and on which we should home in, concerns the protection of young people. That has always been of great concern to Parliament, and not just this Parliament. In the previous century, Act of Parliament followed Act of Parliament regulating young people's terms of employment. That has not abated; it has continued through this century. Parliament has always been anxious to protect young people.
Clause 1 dramatically strips away protection for young boys. I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, or any other hon. Members, saw a recent television report on child abuse in a children's home in north Wales. A feature of that broadcast was that the victims were often shown in silhouette. Those young people, now adults, told horrific stories about how they had been scarred for life by the abuse that they had suffered, in particular by older men. It may be that when they initially suffered that abuse they were well under the age of 16. I perfectly well understand that. Those hon. Members who did not see the programme should try to do so before they proceed too far in support of the Bill, and they should reconsider whether they are doing the right thing in supporting it.
The clause will extend the scope for the abuse of young boys. On the 364th day of a 15-year-old boy's life he is entitled to the full protection of the law as devised by Parliament, but the following day, he will be fair game to what I believe the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) calls a fruit. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) might be able to support me on that.
Overnight, Parliament will decree that at one moment, at a minute before midnight, we protect such a boy, but two minutes later he will be out there on his own. The essential point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was that it is one thing to do that at the age of 18, two years on in a boy's life, but it is quite another thing to do it at the age of 16. We are confronted here with at least the possibility of giving a nod and a wink to those who are interested in abusing young men, and I fear that that is what will happen.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) graciously allowed me to intervene on some medical aspects. I am surprised that he should be so contemptuous of a point that I raised. Of course, this has to do with the law; it would be fatuous to suggest otherwise. But the hon. Gentleman and those who support the measure have a lot to argue for here on the medical front. It is no good him and others simply trying to dismiss the point.
If the National Blood Authority believes, despite always being in pursuit of people who will give blood, that any man who has ever, even once, had anal intercourse, should under no circumstances give blood, is the House simply to ignore that and dismiss it in a cavalier fashion, as the hon. Gentleman did?

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not a fact that people who disagree with my hon. Friend dismiss that or ignore it because it does not fit in with their politically correct view of life?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting to see how any factual arguments are dismissed, as my hon. Friend suggests. Not only is the medical evidence dismissed, but the opinion polls are dismissed. Our opponents do not simply say, as most wise politicians would, that we should not rely on opinion polls but that they give a broad direction. In this case, the opinion polls point clearly to the fact that the British public do not like what Parliament and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and his friends are doing, and they have made that perfectly clear.
It is all very well to lead the public. At times, the previous Conservative Government enacted legislation which was not initially popular but which subsequently became so. The Minister of State may raise his eyebrows, but I shall not give a litany of the splendid measures enacted by that Government, the benefits of which are now hugely enjoyed by the public, because you, Mr. Lord, would chastise me if I did and, as I might wish to catch your eye on a future occasion, I need to be careful.
Homosexual activity, and certainly anal intercourse, increases the risk of HIV. I could put it in rather dramatic and crude terms, although I am not sure that I will, but the House is suggesting that it will protect boys up to the age of 16 from HIV in the sense that it will provide

draconian sanctions—of course, Parliament cannot stop people from acting in defiance of the law—but the moment they reach their 16th birthday, Parliament is prepared to allow people to makes decisions that could lead to their contracting AIDS, which is a life-destroying disease.

6 pm

Mr. Borrow: Can the hon. Gentleman tie in the views that he has expressed with those expressed by those organisations concerned with the sexual health of young people? All those organisations have argued that 16 and 17-year-old males will be protected from the spread of AIDS and HIV because the reduction of the age of consent will be a safeguard for them—it will enable better sexual health advice to be given. The hon. Gentleman's point is completely fatuous.

Mr. Howarth: That is what we were told when the argument that the age of consent should be reduced from 21 to 18 was put to the House. We were told all the things that those wonderful organisations said and that a reduction would enable the proper advice to be given to children. In fact, that reduction has had the opposite effect. There has been an increase—I have the figures here, but I cannot lay my hands on them.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am concerned, any advice given by the Terrence Higgins Trust is 180 deg out. It is a most disreputable organisation and its literature is absolutely and utterly disgusting. When I was a Member of the House before, I campaigned to ensure that it did not receive a penny of public money. I believe that it now has to rely more on voluntary subscription and is not so readily able to dip into the taxpayer's pocket, in pursuit of producing its disgusting literature.
The protection of young people goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve in wrestling with this matter. I refer to an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on 24 January, the day before the debate on Second Reading. It is by Melanie Phillips, who is an interesting and challenging commentator. She said of the Bill:
It's no longer just about gay sex. Remarkably, it implies that both gay and straight sex are proper activities for children. The government has got itself into this fix because it tried to buy off opposition by promising to protect 16 to 18-year-olds against sex with gay adults in a position of trust, like teachers or scoutmasters.
But not vicars, of course. Miss Phillips continues:
That itself was ludicrous, since it conceded that gay 16-year-olds were in effect still children to be protected from adult sex—but only sometimes.
That is the essence of the flaw in the case of those who argue for the measure and for the clause.
Those people are prepared to provide protection for children, but only in certain circumstances. The whole basis of their argument is therefore completely and utterly destroyed. If they felt that there was no need to protect children, they would not have acceded to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), which, at the time, I supported. In doing that, those people have given the game away—the measure puts children and young boys more at risk and makes them more vulnerable. That is the effect that


those people will have to live with. The charge will lie heavily on the shoulders of those who support the measure.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his measured and interesting contribution. The contributions of those who support the measure have been permeated by the word "equality", and I want to deal with that in a moment. One of the arguments about equality, which was used during the debate on the amendments, is that, whereas young girls are not criminalised if they are abused under the age of 16, boys are criminalised. I welcome the fact that the Government are to consider that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere argued a good case, and removing the criminality may lead to the better protection of children.

Mr. Swayne: Does not my hon. Friend recognise, however, that there is a severe danger of a creeping reduction in the age of consent? As the Bill stands, a boy under 16 who explored his sexuality and had consensual homosexual sex with a boy over 16 would be breaking the law and could be punished. From the way the debate on amendment No. 2 went, it appears that the Minister will address that issue. It may be possible for young men under 16 to go ahead and involve themselves in that sort of consensual activity—whereupon, in effect, no age of consent will apply at all.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend and I are absolutely united: we do not believe in the reduction of the age of consent to 16. We believe that 18 is the right age. His point is whether it is an additional deterrent to those under 16 that they would be committing an offence by engaging in such activity.
The honest answer to my hon. Friend is that I am not sure. I have listened to the debate and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere made an interesting point. It is certainly one that I am prepared to explore, but I want to explore it on the basis that I want to protect children. Those who support the measure want to make children more vulnerable. That is the difference, and we will have to return to it.
I do not want to take up too much more of the House's time, but I want to challenge this business of equality. The case of the Minister and those who support the measure is that, somehow, there is huge inequality and that—simply in the pursuit of equality and regardless of the facts, regardless of the medical evidence and regardless of the opinion polls—we have to lower the age of consent for boys from 18 to 16. That is not something that I accept.
I believe that there are differences between boys and girls. They grow up and mature at different ages. I also do not subscribe to the view that there is equality between heterosexual and homosexual intercourse. One is natural and ordained by the Almighty; the other is not. Those are fundamental and incontrovertible differences which render the whole argument about equality invalid from the start.
Moreover, if equality became the overriding principle in public policy, as is demanded by the gay rights groups, those who support the reduction of the age of consent would lay themselves open to the argument,

with which they may agree, that there should be equality in everything else. Should there be equality in pensions? Should there be equality in terms of marriage, so that there could be homosexual marriages? That will be the next thing. Those who support the Bill have to answer this question: is this the end of the line or are they prepared to go further, as those in the militant gay rights outfits want? [Interruption.] Peter Tatchell is going off to Australia, which is good news.
Those who support the reduction of the age of consent, and argue that they are seeking to achieve equality, also have to answer the accusation that there are anomalies, even as the Bill stands. First, although the age of consent will be 16 for England, Wales and Scotland, it will 17 in Northern Ireland. Where is the equality there? Where is the consistency throughout the United Kingdom? Furthermore, anal intercourse with a 16-year-old girl will remain unlawful, but anal intercourse with a 16-year-old boy will become lawful.

Dr. Julian Lewis: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he thinks that anal intercourse with 16-year-old girls remains unlawful. The Bill permits anal intercourse with 16 and 17-year-old girls and boys, and exposes both equally to all the medical dangers of anal intercourse to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that correction. As the Minister is not contradicting my hon. Friend, I must take it that he is absolutely right. If so, I thoroughly deplore that provision in the Bill. I am sorry that I was not aware of it.
Members of Parliament all have a grave responsibility to protect young people. I have outlined why this measure does not do that. The argument that we must strive for equality is not in itself sufficient justification for bringing about this momentous change, which does not command the support of the British people. It is out of step with public opinion and it threatens vulnerable boys. It will send out the wrong signals to a civilised society.

Mr. Robathan: There is always a danger in clause stand part debates that the arguments made on Second Reading are repeated. I shall not do that, but it must be said that this clause is the Bill. I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) leaving the Chamber, because he tabled some sensible clauses for addition to last year's Crime and Disorder Bill. The other clauses in this Bill are simply a fig leaf. The provision on abuse of trust is nonsense. This clause is what the Bill is all about.
I respect the view that homosexual and heterosexual acts are equal, although I do not agree with it. I sympathise with the view that the law should not be involved in personal relationships between two people, although I do not agree with that, either. One must then go on to determine at what stage the law comes into effect.
I wish to make just three points on this clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, people may argue that heterosexual and homosexual acts are equal, but it is obvious to those who are willing to accept the evidence before


their eyes that they are not. They are not equal biologically, physiologically or physically. They may be equal emotionally—I do not know—but otherwise they are not. Those who argue that such acts are equal deceive themselves. They are in thrall to their political correctness or to the single-issue pressure group, because it is simply not true and it is nonsense to pretend that it is. One might say that both acts should be allowed, but they are not equal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred to the National Blood Authority, which does not believe that homosexual and heterosexual intercourse are equal. Should I ever have to have a blood transfusion, I will be glad to know that it has taken that position.
My second point is one that I did not make on Second Reading. Some people have been praying in aid old martyrs to the cause of homosexual equality. Oscar Wilde has been much mentioned.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman did mention him.

Mr. Robathan: Only in an intervention. Since Second Reading, I have read a little about Oscar Wilde. I have studied several biographies, which say much the same, including the sympathetic biography by Richard Ellman. We should be careful about romanticising Oscar Wilde, as the placing of a statue of him in the Strand last year did. Clearly, he was persecuted by the father of his male friend, Lord Alfred Douglas, the Earl of Rosebery. He wrote some fine plays and was quite a good poet. However, those who are concerned about paedophilia and sex tourism should know that Oscar Wilde was a paedophile and a sex tourist—[Interruption.]Labour Members shake their heads. Let them read the biography—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] I can quote from memory that Alfred and Oscar competed for Neapolitan boys in 1897. What is that if not paedophilia and sex tourism? Let us hear no more nonsense about Oscar Wilde being a martyr to homosexual equality.
6.15 pm
My third point is that the Bill is part of an agenda. It was once a standard joke that people who signed letters, "Yours disgustedly", were retired colonels from Tunbridge Wells. It shows how far this country has changed that on Monday I received a letter signed "Yours in disgust" from somebody to whom I shall refer as Peter from Liverpool. I will not embarrass him by naming him further. All Members of Parliament receive letters from nutters. They are usually heavily underlined, and that letter is underlined all over the place.
I understand that Peter Tatchell has said that the age of consent should be reduced to 14. That is a perfectly respectable position, although I do not agree with it in any circumstances.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It is not respectable at all.

Mr. Robathan: Well, one may hold that view, but I do not. The letter to which I referred, besides being insulting and disgusting, says:
We need to move forward and be positive about things and this means equality for all. Legalised marriage for same sex couples is long overdue and"—

those words are underlined—
other benefits already enjoyed by heterosexual couples need to be extended"—
those words, too, are underlined—
to gay couples. They include … adoption rights for same-sex couples, housing rights for same sex couples, pension rights for same sex couples.
Thankfully, we have a government who are committed to the equalization of the heterosexual and homosexual ages of consent.
I do not want to labour the point, but this agenda has been pursued within and without the House by the homosexual lobby, which is a very small lobby. Most people do not wake up worrying about this issue and we know from opinion polls that they are opposed to the equalisation of the age of consent. They do not take a homophobic view, but they happen to think that the homosexual case is different—as it is. However, the homosexual lobby has pursued this agenda with single-minded determination and its sustained campaign is now coming to fruition.
The clause is supposed to be about child protection, but it is about a lack of child protection and about society's position on certain types of behaviour. It is the start, not the end, of the agenda. When the House passes it, as I fear it will, it should be aware of that.

Mr. Swayne: Ironically, the reason for rejecting the clause is precisely the same as that for protecting it from amendment No. 2 earlier this afternoon. As it now stands, the clause maintains an important discrimination—or rather, an important difference of treatment, if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will forgive me—in that it treats differently girls under the age of 16 who explore their sexuality and homosexual boys under the age of 16 who seek to explore theirs. That is an important distinction.
However, from what the Minister said, it would appear that that "anomaly"—rather than important principle—may be dealt with on Report. It would therefore be much better to dispose of the entire clause as it now stands than see it amended in such a way.
The important principle of treating differently sexual activity by homosexuals and heterosexuals under the age of 16 is that the law should reinforce social mores and give the clear message that the two life styles are clearly different. It is not as if life is a supermarket and one can choose life styles that have moral equivalence in the same way as one can choose a breakfast cereal.
The problem is the extent to which a person has a choice in determining his sexual orientation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). On Second Reading, Labour Members said that experience clearly showed that the sexual orientation of many people was fixed and they had no role in determining it. I do not question that for a moment: I am sure that that is true.
However, many people are in a different boat. They experience unnatural sexual desires in their early teens, when they are approaching 16 and beyond, and they would otherwise outgrow those desires because of peer pressure, and are ashamed of them. The law has an important role in making it clear what society expects and what is proper and acceptable. If we take away those social mores—which this legislation does—people will be


encouraged to explore those sexual desires rather than to repress them. They will be encouraged to adopt a life style that they may regret later on, whereas they may otherwise have led a blameless life.
It comes down to the question of what one regards as an acceptable life style. I make no apology for the fact that I believe that a homosexual life style is a much less commendable life style. It is a sterile way of life. It precludes giving life to future generations and having a normal, natural family life. The vacuum that is thereby created leads to promiscuity and instability. That in turn leads to the higher incidents of disease among homosexual men, and the state of the blood bank. The determination of the blood transfusion service not to take any blood from men who have had homosexual activity of a particular kind bears witness to that fact.
On Second Reading, we were told that those who take this view on the clause are akin to the slave traders, and that the debate has a moral significance and equivalence to the slavery debate. I suspect that it is rather different. The consequence of rejecting the clause would be to require boys aged 16 who are seeking to express physically their homosexual desires to hold off for two years. I do not regard that as a huge inconvenience, or a huge impediment equivalent to a life of slavery. On the contrary, I regard it as most expedient for their own good, because it may provide them with the liberty and the freedom to escape a life style that, to many, is cursed.

Mr. Townend: I approach the Bill from the point of view of child protection. I ask myself why anyone should support the clause. I do not believe that OutRage is particularly worried about 16 to 18-year-olds. I am even more cynical about its attitude. I believe that it wants the clause to go through to allow older men to prey on younger boys. One of the great problems of many homosexuals is that they proselytise: they want to bring more people into their society.
It is generally accepted that many youngsters, below and above the age of 16, experiment homosexually with other boys of the same age, especially at boys' boarding schools. In the past, they have been under pressure from society to rejoin normal life and become heterosexuals when they leave school. The overwhelming majority of them have done so, and have gone on to lead a normal life, to marry and to have children.
What worries me about the clause is that, at 17, those boys may be preyed on by older men and may get involved in homosexual society. It is a close-knit society; it has its own social life with its own pubs and clubs. Once they are involved in that society, it is difficult to get out of it.
The age of consent has been progressively reduced from 21 to 18 and now to 16. Will it be reduced to 14 next year? The debate is camouflaged with an enormous amount of political correctness. The word "equality" is used, but it is not equality. The Bill will put more young people at risk and a prey to evil older men.
If I had been in the House at the time, I would have voted to remove the criminality from homosexual acts between consenting adults. That is right, but if we go further we will put our young people in danger. Much

nonsense is talked about political correctness and about society. We should discriminate in favour of marriage and a heterosexual society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury put many arguments against the clause, but he did not mention religion. It is important that the Christian religion bans homosexuality. I am worried that political correctness is creeping into some of the Churches and that they are giving up that original belief.
It will be an ill day for this country if we pass this clause. It will put our young people at risk. We see the terrible social implications for young girls who become pregnant before the age of 16. Given what is happening on television, on the internet and on videos, our children need more protection now than they ever did, so I shall vote against the clause.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Yet again, we have heard arguments against the clause. Significantly, but perhaps not surprisingly, many of them have been made by Conservative Members. It is right that hon. Members should express their views, which I believe are deeply held and genuinely felt. However, clause 1 is not about sex tourists, paedophiles, the exoticism of Neapolitan boys or political correctness. It is about the ability of young men to enjoy the same freedom as young girls. It is about decriminalising activity between two consenting young adults. Under the current law, their crime is not that they have strong feelings, but that they happen to be homosexual.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred to sterile relationships. My wife and I have homosexual friends whose relationships are not sterile: they enjoy relationships that are as loving and caring as any between two people who happen to be heterosexual rather than homosexual. I think it monstrously unfair to suggest that relationships between two people of the same sex can only be sterile.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend tell us, on the basis of his research, the average length of such relationships? I understand that they tend not to last very long. Can my hon. Friend also tell us something about what happens within such relationships when an element of promiscuity is involved?

Mr. Woodward: I will not detain the Committee by making a detour from my speech. I merely say to my hon. Friend that, in my view, we do no favours to ourselves or anyone listening to the debate by describing relationships between people of the same sex as though they were inferior to relationships between heterosexuals.
Many heterosexuals could learn from the precautions—safer sex, and the prevention of transmission of HIV—that the homosexual community has introduced. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend takes such a view, but, if some people were not so bigoted and hypocritical, more heterosexual people would be alive today. They would understand that AIDS is not a homosexual disease, but an illness that passes from one person to another as a result of unsafe sexual practices.

Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wise words. I assure him that, although he may feel


outnumbered on the Conservative Benches, when the public are asked whether they think that homosexual behaviour is morally inferior to heterosexual behaviour, the more popular view is that it is not.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Tonight, we are discussing whether the present law is wrong. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether the present law is intolerant. I believe that it is. We are discussing whether it is without compassion. I believe that it is. We are also discussing whether we will allow two people of the same sex to enjoy a relationship that is loving, not criminal. That is why I think it right for Parliament to change the law tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) described the protection of those aged between 16 and 18 as an acid test. He said that the Committee must be convinced that they would not be put at more risk. I ask him of what risk he speaks, and what evidence he has to support what he says. Those who evaluate the risk—organisations that work in child protection, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, Childline, the Children's Society and countless others—tell us that the risk lies in leaving children unprotected, and that the current law does not protect them.
Those organisations believe that protection is the central issue. It is because of the work that they have done that I, at least, have decided that it is right to lower the age of consent. I ask hon. Members who believe that the law should be left as it stands whether they have asked those organisations for their evidence. I suspect—his is not a criticism, but an observation—that many of my hon. Friends have continued to peddle a view which, although they hold it deeply and passionately, is not based on evidence for which they could have asked.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does my hon. Friend accept that some homosexuals in the community believe that the age of consent for homosexuals should remain as it is?

Mr. Woodward: No doubt some members of the homosexual community believe that the age of consent should stay at 18, but the evidence from those involved in the argument about protection—the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—suggests overwhelmingly that protection will be better served by a lowering of the age of consent. That is a different issue from that of the views of some homosexuals about the age at which they should be allowed to practise a loving relationship, or a relationship with someone else.

Mr. Brazier: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He asked whether we had studied the evidence. I have worked extensively with the NSPCC on other matters, and have examined its evidence as well as that of others. I find evidence from such organisations unconvincing because of the overwhelming medical evidence from studies—most conducted abroad, although some have been conducted in this country—of the huge medical risks involved in the homosexual life style.
An example is the incidence of venereal disease in the 50 states of America. There is an almost direct correlation between the incidence of venereal disease and the law on homosexuality, which varies hugely between states.

Mr. Woodward: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I say merely that I will not set myself above the British Medical Association; I will rely on doctors here who tell us that we would protect young people better by changing the age of consent to 16.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke of the duty to provide the maximum protection for young people. I could not agree more. It is because of that duty that I believe we should hear what the experts tell us, and then apply what we have heard and lower the age of consent. My right hon. Friend referred to the proposition that the public have a right to be heard. He made an important comparison, which was also made on Second Reading: he drew a parallel with the slave trade of the 18th century.
I raised that issue because, in that instance, the House had to debate a great moral issue and, ultimately, to take action that, at the time, probably did not have much public support. I believe that, when we look at the changes that were introduced post-Wolfenden, we will see that Parliament did the right thing, and that public opinion has moved in the direction in which Parliament moved when it changed the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) defended his position, rather eloquently, by saying that slavery involved adults and that this issue involved children. There is a danger in that argument, which is caused by double standards. The law allows a young man of 16 to be a father. What greater duty can any young man have than to be responsible for the life of a child?

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Woodward: No, I will not.
Anyone who has a child—I have four—knows about the burden of responsibility involved in bringing up children, but the law allows someone of 16 to do so.
My hon. Friends talk about the need to listen to the public. That means listening to parents, but it also means listening to children and young people. I was the deputy director of Childline for nearly 10 years. Before Childline existed, it was thought that sexual abuse did not happen very much, that it probably happened among the working classes, and that, by and large, it was not a great problem. That was a serious mistake, which resulted from only one group of the public being listened to—adults and, from time to time, the unfortunate children who ended up in court having to be witnesses in cases against those who had sexually abused them. Childline brought about a fundamental change. It brought about the recognition that children and young people have a right to be heard.
It would be grossly impertinent for the Committee to suggest that the will of a heterosexual majority should determine that we do not listen to the voices of young men and women who happen to be in a minority because they are homosexual. Childline listened to those young people, and has done a great deal to change the environment in which sexual abuse has been able to operate. That brings me to the importance of listening


to organisations that work with young people. They tell us that the current law is wrong, because they listen to those young people. They tell us that the law fails to protect; they tell us that, in some cases, it hurts; and they tell us that it leads some young people who are desperate to take their own lives. We have a duty in the House to listen to that evidence, too—to listen not only to the evidence of our prejudices and of the majority heterosexual community, but to those young people and the organisations that work with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) asked us to focus on whether homosexuality is a matter of choice, or is pre-ordained. There is no question but that that is an interesting scientific debate, which will go on and on and runs the risk of leading the House into a cul de sac for one simple reason. The issue in the clause is not what makes people homosexual. It is whether someone who is recognised by the law as old enough legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood should, because they have a homosexual relationship, run the risk of a criminal prosecution.
For socialists, it is an issue of equality and I respect that, but a Conservative should ask: why should we deny a homosexual young male his freedom when we are prepared to give it to a young woman? Why, because he practises his sexuality, often in a loving relationship, with someone of the same sex, should that be criminalised? Crucially, where is the evidence that supports the argument that young people are better protected by criminalising the activities of their early adult years?

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but a lot of it is based on assumptions with which I do not agree. He talks about 16-year-olds committing suicide. I do not know how many have done so, but the issue for most Conserative Members—and, indeed, for Members throughout the House—who oppose the clause is not about two 16-year-old boys; it is about older men and 16 and 17-year-old boys. That is a fact. I do not mind what two 16-year-old boys get up to. What I am worried about is 40-year-old men and 16-year-old boys.

Mr. Woodward: I will come to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a moment or two.
I do not dispute the fact that some young people who have a homosexual relationship at 17 may go on to have relationships with the opposite sex in later years. That is a matter for them. In so doing, they will enjoy the wonderful experience of having children, but the majority who enjoy a heterosexual life must look closely in their hearts at the consequence of imposing their chosen way of life on those for whom that is either not possible or not desirable. What right does one group, albeit a majority, have to make a misery and a criminal offence of what may be a loving, caring relationship between two people who just happen to be of the same sex? I cannot find it intellectually right and I cannot find it in my heart to be right. It is not compassionate, tolerant, just or based on evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke about passion. Passion is an important friend for the politician, but it is also a dangerous friend. It can blind us to the arguments and the evidence and, indeed, lead us to ignore it.
My hon. Friend said that the measure would expand the scope for abuse of young boys. We are not talking of young boys. We are talking of people whom the law allows legally to father a child and to take the responsibility of parenthood. We are talking of young men. We may be talking of abuse, but I remind my hon. Friend that if we want to deal with abuse, we should not be talking about the relationship between older men and younger boys. By and large, the majority of abuse is not committed by older men on younger boys. It is committed by randy old men in various areas throughout the country who chase after young girls. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is not proposing legislation or amendments to the Bill to rectify that.
The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused. It is important to recognise abuse. The current law makes it harder for young men who are abused between the ages of 16 and 18 because, in reporting their abuse, they render themselves open to prosecution.
6.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot had words to say about the Terrence Higgins Trust. I disagree profoundly with him. His words were injudicious.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Woodward: I will give way in a moment. My hon. Friend has had his say on the trust.
The work that the trust, Crusaid, Stonewall and other organisations have done has saved lives and encouraged people to enjoy loving, caring relationships. It does not reflect well on the House to undermine their work not only to save people who have HIV, to help them to lead longer and better lives and to ensure that they do not spread that disease, but, crucially, to stop people getting the illness in the first place. If only the heterosexual community had been as sensible and had raised the money to set up such organisations, far fewer heterosexual people would have HIV and AIDS. As a result of the work of organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, fewer homosexuals have the disease.
My hon. Friends the Members for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) talked of the Bill being the thin end of the wedge and said that efforts would be made to lower the age of consent even further. No hon. Member makes the case for lowering the age of consent even further. That is not part of clause 1. It is, in itself, a valid discussion. I personally would not support—through the Bill or any other way—lowering for either heterosexuals or homosexuals the age of consent below 16, but that is not relevant to the clause or the Bill. It is yet another distraction.
I have received a number of letters from the public on the Bill, particularly following the previous debate. There is one that I should like briefly to quote. I do so for one simple reason. When I worked in television and was editor of "That's Life", we found that, by and large, if we went to the people who were affected—the people who suffer because of the way in which the law currently stands—we stood to learn a lot.
The letter tells me that it is far from the case that homosexual people enjoy only sterile relationships. It does not come from a lobby group. It is not the expression


of a militant individual. It is from a member of our society, our community, our country who happens to be homosexual. He says:
As a gay man now in my late 30s I can still remember how terrified and isolated I felt about my burgeoning sexuality during my teenage years. My discovery from the dictionary that my feelings could be defined as homosexuality and later that such activity had been decriminalised from the age of 21 gave me some hope that I was not totally alone in the world. However the '67 legislation, ground breaking though it was then, felt more like the grudging acceptance of an adult male perversion than any positive affirmation of the adult I was to become. It was meant to. Those that meant it then and those that wish to perpetuate the status quo now have excluded us from society and then heaped criticism upon us for being unconventional. We are forced into life styles with which we are not always happy and then judged for it.
It is often said…that homosexuality breaks down the nuclear family. It is prejudice against homosexuality which does that. We are products of the nuclear family and many of us wish to remain within its bounds of love and protection but are prevented from doing so by the perpetuation of the atmosphere of hate and prejudice by these people.
He goes on to say that, in 1978, at the age of 18, he told his parents of his sexuality:
I thank God that my parents fought their fears and prejudices and I remain a loved and loving son, brother, uncle and godfather. My family would prefer I were heterosexual but they have totally accepted who I am and I remain as active a member of my family as anyone else within it. I know very many others for whom the same is not true. The fear and prejudice of their families strengthened by that of society and enshrined in the law has resulted in their total exclusion from the family circle. Many others cannot even bear to tell their parents. Their self esteem is so low and their fear of rejection so great that they cannot begin to imagine that the people who should love them most could ever accept them.
They leave home and disappear into self imposed exile for ever leaving behind an often bewildered and shattered family…Young families are often blown apart in such ways with damaging consequences for the adult, the children, the wider families and society as a whole.
That letter says more than anything else about why we should ensure that the clause stands part of the Bill. The pain and suffering of younger people mean that we should listen to them and that we are duty bound do something about it.
This is an opportunity for Parliament to do something good. It may not have majority support in the country at the moment, but we should remember that we are in a majority heterosexual community. We are not inviting people, as a consequence of the Bill, to take up homosexual activities; we are simply ensuring that certain individuals can have loving, caring relationships with people who happen to be of the same sex. There may be some present who do not like it and that is their prerogative, but the House has no right to discriminate because there is no evidence to suggest that young people will be better protected if we leave the law as it is.
I do not believe that changing the law will send the wrong signals to a civilised society. In fact, Parliament doing the good thing tonight will help to civilise our society. I hope that hon. Members will choose to do that rather than leave in place a law that is patently, evidently and fundamentally unjust.

Ann Keen: I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Like many of my hon. Friends, I totally associate myself

with his entire speech. However, it is also important to put on record the manner and style of speeches by Opposition Members. Some expressed concern, but others showed blatant prejudice.
We must take into account the important work of organisations that care for young people, and have taken the Bill and the original amendment very seriously. The British Medical Association and my own profession of nursing have been involved in serious work for a long time, bringing together all the organisations that care for young people. They are now asking our democratically elected Parliament to take their views seriously. On another occasion, I should like to ask Opposition Members why they feel that they have more wisdom than those organisations.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ann Keen: No. I am making only a short speech. The hon. Gentleman has already contributed to the debate.
Families involved with all young people in our community are equally important. Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers of lesbian and gay young people. In addition to coming to the House, they have also put their case to the wider media—on television and radio and in the newspapers—and for the first time they are being heard. There is a great deal of ignorance which breeds fear, and many brave people have been putting the case not just for equality, but for humanity. I fear that tonight, this place has let them down, but I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. Members who have stood shoulder to shoulder and said that it is now time for justice, equality, humanity, safety and the protection of our young people.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to follow the last two speakers. Before they spoke, it appeared manifest that the entire debate on clause stand part would be conducted solely by Opposition Members and from one point of view. I am on the Standing Committee dealing with the other clause in the Bill, and I have noticed a strange phenomenon that has been repeated here tonight. Certain hon. Members who were very vociferous on 25 January when we debated the Bill on Second Reading have been sitting as quietly as mice. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) spoke on clause 2 in Standing Committee—there was just a single speech from the main man on the Labour Benches—and this evening, we have heard one Labour speech—from the main woman. I find that orchestration somewhat unsettling in what should be a debate on an issue of conscience and a free vote.
I have considerable experience of the way in which pressure groups operate and I have the impression that two pressure groups are operating tonight—an external pressure group in the form of the gay lobby and an internal pressure group in the form of the Government Whips, who seem to have carved a deal on the way in which Labour Members must conduct themselves in these proceedings.
I shall not be as eloquent as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) because I am not reading out my speech word for word, but I noticed that at the end of the debate on 25 January, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) was kind enough to refer


to me in my absence. He made various criticisms and imputed many motivations to my speech. Having made those remarks he was gentlemanly enough to observe:
When I see him I shall remind him of what I have just said. He needs to be told and have that put in his face."—[Official Report, 25 January 1999; Vol.324, c.103.]
Strangely enough, when we met later that evening, the hon. Gentleman did nothing of the sort. In fact, he was his usual charming, debonair and carefree self.

Mr. Tony McNulty: When I saw the hon. Gentleman subsequently in the Corridors beyond the Chamber, the thought of speaking to him turned my stomach.

Dr. Lewis: That is just one more broken Labour promise.
In explaining why I oppose the clause, it is necessary to spell out, as I did at the beginning of my speech on 25 January, that what concerns me is not homosexuality, but a dangerous practice that carries a high medical risk—the practice of anal sex. Time and again throughout the debate on Second Reading, I and other hon. Members challenged those on the other side of the argument—including my hon. Friend the Member for Witney—to explain, once and for all and quite clearly, that if the enormously higher incidence of HIV infection and AIDS in our male homosexual community in Britain had not been caused primarily by the practice of anal sex, what had caused it. Answer came there none.
During today's debate, I and others have made it clear once again that our objections have nothing to do with the rights of adults. If my hon. Friend the Member for Witney had spoken in favour of a minority of repressed adults, I would have cheered him to the rafters, but he spoke in favour of allowing the act of buggery to be committed against young boys and girls of 16 and 17, when that act and the sharing of needles by drug addicts have resulted in a massively increased danger of contracting a deadly disease.

Dr. Harris: I feel that the hon. Gentleman is on another planet. Even if one accepts that certain acts carry greater risks when they are unprotected, in Britain we do not legislate against actions by private individuals that may be dangerous to their health. We do not legislate against heterosexual intercourse, which also can transmit disease, or against childbirth, although it can be dangerous. We criminalise drug use not because of the physical risks of human immune deficiency virus transmission, but for a series of other good reasons. So the hon. Gentleman has missed the point.

7 pm

Dr. Lewis: I was happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and shall be happy to do so again if he will answer a question. Does he approve of legalising prostitution and brothels on the basis that doing so will help to protect people's health, as they will be better supervised and the sex will be safer? Would he care to intervene on that point, too?

Dr. Harris: I can only barely bother to get up to intervene on the point, which deals with an entirely separate matter. If a matter affects only private individuals

and hurts no one else—which is what the Committee is judging for the age group we are considering—it should not be a matter in which the state should intervene. Prostitution and brothels are thought to affect society as a whole, and not only private individuals, as in the case we are considering.

Dr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman was absolutely truthful when he said that I am on a different planet from the other people in this Chamber, whom he represents. But I think that they are on a different planet from the vast majority of British parents, who are worried about their 16 and 17-year-old children—I repeat, children—who are being allowed to engage in a sexual act that will put their health, perhaps fatally, at risk.
I should like briefly to say a word about whether orientation is preordained, and hope that my words will faintly shine a bit of a spotlight on to my own motivations in opposing the provision. Although I know that Labour Members would like to portray me as some sort of secret hater of gays who does not have the courage to say so—[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they would like to do. I tell both Labour Members and my hon. Friends that my first experience of meeting a young boy who was gay was in my grammar school in Swansea. I remember his name and the great pity that I felt for him, because of the way in which—[Interruption.] Before hon. Members laugh, let them at least hear the story.
I felt sorry for the boy because of the way in which he was persecuted and shunned by the other pupils. I also remember asking him how it was that he got into that orientation. He did not turn around and say to me that it was a result of the fact that he had always known that he had those feelings. He told me that it was a result of the fact that an older youth had taken him to a bedroom, tied him to a bed and interfered with him. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that a Labour Member finds this so hilarious. Would she care to intervene and tell me what is so funny about it? I thought that it was a personal tragedy. Would she care to tell me? Evidently not.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman: the debate should flow as fluently as possible. However, I should tell the Committee that every Member is entitled to express his or her point of view and be listened to in the Committee. There are deeply held, opposite views on the question. They should all be heard in the Committee.

Dr. Lewis: I am particularly grateful to you, Sir Alan, for that ruling, and was appalled by that type of reaction. I still feel sorry for that lad. He was a very nice lad, and I feel sorry for what he went through. I wish that he had not had to go through it. However, in my opinion—and I think also in his opinion—there was no question of his having been born a homosexual.
I should point out also that, in the attitude that one can have on the matters we are debating, it is possible to have, as I have, homosexual friends. Probably my closest female friend went through a period of a lesbian relationship. I was not happy that she went through that period, and was happy that she came out of it. Nevertheless, I should tell hon. Members who doubt my sincerity in the matter that, had she never come out of it,


she would have remained my closest female friend. I would go to the ends of the earth for her, and I think that she would do the same for me.
Therefore, when I express such considerations to the Committee, I do so not out of some hidden homophobia, but because the measure would legalise the seduction by people who are adults of people who are children into a physical act—the act of buggery—whether those children are male or female, putting their lives at risk.
Everything in this debate has been expressed on the basis of equality. There is an apparent slavishness to the principle of equality. Regardless of what else happens, people who support lowering the age of consent tell us that it must be done in the cause of equality. Such a position comes close to being—I am not allowed to say hypocritical—insincere.
If there were no way in which the homosexual age of consent could be lowered to 16—if the choice, therefore, were between keeping the heterosexual age of consent at 16 and keeping the homosexual age of consent at 18, or raising the heterosexual age of consent to 18—I would bet that all those hon. Members who have been prating about the supremacy of equality would sing a different tune. To them, it would be more important to preserve the differential as long as it favoured a lower age of consent for some form sexual activity.
As I said in the debate on Second Reading, it is a mark of a civilised society that it raises ages of consent as it gets more civilised. The fact that the age of consent for heterosexual sex is lower than the age of consent for homosexual sex is not a sign that the higher age should be adjusted to the lower age. If equality reigns supreme, adjust the lower age to the higher age. But let us have enough of an insincere, dangerous and potentially fatal recommendation.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I suspect that there is a sense of exhaustion in the debate, as this is the third time that we have debated the issue. The first time was last year, at the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; the second time was in the debate on this Bill's Second Reading; and the third is today. I have no intention of repeating what I said in the Second Reading debate, but shall content myself with making one point, on the protection of children.
I should have hoped—the whole Committee should hope, as it is a rather sensitive matter—that, by the end of this week, we could stop arguing about the issue. However, I fear that the Bill's passage will not be the end of it, as those who promoted the Bill will come back again and again—until they have achieved full equality between heterosexual and homosexual practice, achieved the repeal of clause 28 and ensured that both practices are taught, with equal validity, in our schools. I fear that this is only the start of the debate. However, hon. Members should be concerned primarily not with ourselves, but with the protection of young people—including 16 and 17-year-old children, and particularly very young men.
The Home Office recently published a report on sexual offences against children—to which the Minister of State, Home Office provided a foreword, and which I quoted yesterday in Standing Committee. Unsurprisingly, the report found that only 5 per cent. of sexual offences

against children were committed by women. The report makes it clear that boys and girls are much more at risk from men than from women. However, we did not need a report to tell us that. Whatever people might say about equality between the sexes, there is no equality between men and women on that issue. We are talking almost exclusively about men when we talk about abusers.
The Home Office report tells us that most abusers abuse girls. That is what one would expect, as the population is overwhelmingly heterosexual. The report finds that 60 to 70 per cent. of child molesters abuse girls. The implication of the Minister's remarks in Committee was that those who believe that boys are at risk from homosexual men need not worry because of the statistics. However, the Home Office says that 20 to 33 per cent. of abusers target only boys. That is a staggeringly high proportion. I accept that some of those who target boys will be women, but the report points out that almost all abusers are men. Up to a third of abusers target boys.
No one has ever suggested that a third of men are homosexual. Academic studies vary, but the Office for National Statistics has said that 1 per cent. of men say that they have only ever had homosexual sex. The supporters of the Bill may believe that a figure of 1 per cent. of the population being homosexual is far too low, but even if that were completely wrong—even if it were 2 or 3 per cent.—how could we have a situation where 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or slightly more men are homosexual, but where they apparently make up more than 30 per cent. of child molesters? This is not prejudice—that is taken from the Home Office report.
Suppose the exact figure for abuse was 15 per cent. That would mean that boys were 15 times more likely to be abused by a man than a woman. If the Bill is enacted, we will be ensuring that more boys are abused and damaged for life.

Mr. Woodward: I remind my hon. Friend that we are talking about relationships between consenting adults. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has looked for evidence, but the Bill is dealing with relationships between two consenting people. Child abuse, the abuse of young people, indecent assault or rape will remain crimes, and are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: I am afraid that they are relevant. My hon. Friend made a long and passionate speech, the purport of which appeared to be that 16-year-olds were adults. They may be adults in bodily form, but in many ways—emotionally and psychologically—they are still children. In many respects, they are still children legally. They cannot vote and they cannot be asked to die for their country. If the Committee is primarily concerned with protecting boys between the ages of 16 and 18—as it should be—it is taking a retrograde step tonight.
The abuse of trust proposals in the Bill are only a fig leaf because they will not apply to youth workers, vicars and occasional supply teachers—all those people who will come into contact with young people. That is my concern.
In conclusion, I accept that, in this world, we are all different. Many people are homosexual, and we recognise that. It would be lovely if we were all Conservatives and heterosexuals. It would be lovely if there were no crime or divorce. However, we must show understanding and compassion to those who do not share our views or way


of life—including those who are homosexual. We reject homophobia, hatred and prejudice as passionately as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, we must believe that Parliament has a right and a duty to stand up for something that is right and pure.
We are not just talking about gratification; sex is not about that. Sex is about raising children in the context of a loving family. So much of the debate on homosexuality is fundamentally sterile in that sense. It is not just that it can be an unhealthy activity; it is not just that it is an offence against many people's religious convictions. We believe that we are sending tonight the wrong message to a society which, again and again in opinion polls, has said that it does not approve of what we are doing. I hope that we will vote against the clause and the Bill in increased numbers.

Dr. Harris: I rise briefly to say that I firmly support the clause. I wish to respond to one of the several points made by Conservative Members to which I was tempted to respond. The allegation that homosexuals are sex offenders in the main or in the minority cannot be sustained. As the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, it is not the case that when talking about consenting acts, we are talking somehow about child abuse or sexual abuse. It may well be that a large proportion, but not a majority, of offences are directed against boys, but those are not by homosexuals necessarily. It is not a heterosexual act or a homosexual act to abuse someone—it is an abusive act. The distinction must be recognised.
Although I warmly welcome the clause—and thank the Government for proposing it—it would make it much easier to defend the gay community against bigoted allegations of child abuse and sex abuse if amendments to sex offenders legislation could be made, within the Bill, to ensure that those offences that are no longer criminal are removed from the legislation on sex offenders requiring registration. I hope that the Minister will think again on that subject, so that, on Third Reading, we can have a Bill—including this clause—that is complete and fair.

Mr. Clappison: As has been made abundantly clear, this matter will be the subject of a free vote, and I welcome the opportunity to make my personal contribution to the debate. I do so with a certain caution, because it is not in my nature to lecture people on how they should run their lives. I always exercise great caution in making such statements. However, on a subject of great public importance such as this, we owe it to our constituents to set out our views.
I have the opportunity to set out my views against the background of what I believe has been a very good debate. On such a subject, we owe it to our constituents to listen to the views of others with a certain amount of tolerance, and to listen to both sides of the argument. We have heard good speeches on both sides of the argument from both sides of the House. That has been of benefit. However, we must exercise a certain tolerance when listening to the views of others.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) observed, we have heard only one speech from the Labour Benches. It was a good, pertinent and

passionate speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—albeit a short one—although I did not agree with it. She serves on the Committee, and I had been looking forward to hearing rather more of the views of other Labour Members who serve on the Committee this evening. That pleasure has been further delayed for me.
I did not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but he has been consistent and he made his remarks forcefully. However, there was a certain element of self-destruction in his exchange with his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The hon. Member for Hallam got it completely wrong when he dismissed the opinion poll evidence which shows that the majority of the public are opposed to a reduction of the age of consent by saying that, in opinion polls, people are expressing their view about homosexuality, not the age of consent. However, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that all the evidence is that the public do not think that homosexuals are inferior. I agree with that, but it cannot be reconciled with the statement from the hon. Member for Hallam, who got it wrong. The public do not think that homosexuals are inferior, but they have a sense of unease about reducing the age of consent still further, from 18 to 16. We have to exercise our judgment on the age at which the criminal law should apply.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I wonder whether it is altogether wise at present for a Conservative Front Bencher to rest his case on opinion polls.

Mr. Clappison: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been with us throughout the debate, but several contributions have dealt with public opinion and we should take into account what the public have to say on this issue. This is not an occasion for party political points, and he has done the Committee no service by introducing such a note.
The hon. Member for Hallam spoke about criminalising young people, but he must accept that we are being called on to exercise a judgment. The criminal law has to apply at a certain age, and I believe that that should be 18 rather than 16.
We have heard many excellent speeches from Opposition Members on both sides of the argument. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent speech, that the protection of young people should be of great concern and should go to the heart of what we are trying to do. He made the fair point that the clause takes away a certain amount of protection for 16 and 17-year-olds. We are trying, through our endeavours in the Standing Committee, to give young people protection from those who would abuse a position of trust. We have found that an extremely difficult task, and there may be more problems, but even those who support the clause must accept that it weakens the protection that is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) expressed characteristically honest and forceful views. He mentioned Oscar Wilde, and I shall certainly read with great interest the biography to which he referred. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was equally honest when he spoke about the need to protect young people and children. I agreed with him


when he referred to the innocence of youth and childhood. Whatever the views of "Blue Peter" presenters these days, I seek to protect that innocence as much as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) expressed some forceful views that reflected a substantial element of public opinion.
I do not agree with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), but I recognise that he made an excellent, powerful speech which contained a great deal of reason and emotion. He has clearly done a great deal of research and he made a very considered speech. He was right to bring the evidence that he found to our attention. He rightly referred to the importance of the Wolfenden report and the changes that it brought about, ushering in the age of tolerance, but I believe, personally, that he would do well to reflect on what Wolfenden said about the age of consent.
Wolfenden fixed the age of consent at 21. The report also considered 16 and 18, and some members of the committee were in favour of 18, but the report made it very clear that people of 16 were too young and that young men were not mature enough at that age to engage in homosexual activity. I noted with great interest that, last June, the sole surviving member of the Wolfenden committee, Lord Mishcon, returned to the subject in an excellent debate in another place and once again said that 18, not 16, was the proper age. He still thought that, even in today's society, 16 was too young.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney made a moving speech, quoting a letter about the pain and suffering experienced by someone as a result of his homosexuality. It is right to use such moving material and there is no doubt that the subject causes deep emotion and heartache in families, but all that feeling will not be altered one scrap by a reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16. A person in that situation will still find it painful and harrowing to have to talk to members of his family on the subject, and families will still have problems coming to terms with it. Homosexual acts should not be illegal, but we should be extremely careful about the age of consent.
The letter illustrated the fact, also referred to by Wolfenden, that we are talking about a decision or experience for young people that will have a profound effect on them for the rest of their life. They should be protected from that decision until an appropriate age of maturity, and 16 is simply too young, as my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said.
The majority of public opinion shares that view. People do not, by and large, dislike or fear homosexuals, although there may be some who are prejudiced and take that view. The large majority extend toleration and understanding to people of a homosexual disposition, but they still feel a deep sense of unease at the prospect of an age of consent at 16 rather than 18. They feel that, even though young people may grow up faster today, 16-year-olds are still far too young and need the protection of the law until they are 18. We must examine our consciences and ask whether we are doing right by our constituents and the young people of this country.

Mr. Boateng: This has been a long and wide-ranging debate. It has in many ways resembled a Second Reading

debate, but, unlike the debate that we had at that stage, it has not always done us much credit. Bishops have been prayed in aid, Oscar Wilde has been traduced and every orifice has been explored. I do not intend to go down that path.
We have to recognise that this clause stand part debate is about one thing, and one thing only—the equalisation of the age of consent. It is not about the protection of children and vulnerable people. That is something which we have explored upstairs in Committee, and it is something to which the House rightly gave considerable attention on Second Reading and to which it will return on Report. We are talking about equalisation.
The points made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) deserve attention. They spoke about the welfare of children and the protection of young people. The question that those who support them have not answered is how it serves a 16 or 17-year-old boy to criminalise him for the expression of his sexuality.

Dr. Julian Lewis: rose—

Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way.
That is the question that they have not been able to answer.

Dr. Lewis: Answer it now.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. They have not been able to answer that question because they must surely know that such a young person cannot be protected if he lives his life in fear, or if he, his doctor, the school nurse and all those who might have be concerned for his welfare are inhibited in meeting his needs by the fact that he stands in jeopardy before the criminal law. That is the point that we have been debating in our consideration of the Bill, and it is to that point that all hon. Members will need to turn their mind when they come to vote.

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I shall give way in due course.
It is a measure on which all Members will have an opportunity to exercise their vote freely. It is a measure to which all hon. Members will have to apply their judgment, and it is the judgment of those of us who support the clause that young people are better protected in the circumstances that we have outlined—by their being enabled freely to express their sexuality without fear of the intervention of the criminal law—than by being criminalised at the age of 16 and 17.

Mr. Brazier: I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about child abuse and the welfare of young people, but he slightly traduces my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and me by suggesting that our focus is on criminalising young people. The issue is whether it is right for an older man to be able to introduce a 16 or 17-year-old to a homosexual life style to which he may be transitorily attracted.

Mr. Boateng: The issue is whether it is right to discriminate in those circumstances between heterosexual


and homosexual acts. The concern of those of us who support the clause is not to do anything that would encourage 16 or 17-year-olds to have sex. That is not something which anyone seeks to encourage. Clearly, childhood needs to be protected and, where innocence can be protected, it should be. However, we do those young people no service by pretending that anything we do in relation to the criminal law will make one jot of difference to whether or not they engage in sexual activity. It will not. Young people of 16 and 17 will engage in sexual activity. Do we do them any favours by criminalising their actions? The view of those of us who support the clause is that we do no such thing.
The clause is not to be viewed in the way that those who oppose it have on occasions described it. The clause is not a surrender to teenage carnality; it is, however, about recognising the importance of fairness and equality and about making sure, as we have elsewhere in the Bill, that those who have a special relationship of trust with 16 and 17-year-olds, with children and young people, should respect that trust or should face the full sanction of the criminal law. However, that is separate from the matters that we are considering, and hon. Members do no favours to anyone by merging the two. They are quite distinct.
To suggest that people of a homosexual orientation are somehow more likely than not to be predators is to traduce people with a homosexual orientation. It is also to misunderstand and misinterpret all the evidence available to us about the incidence of abuse of children, which shows clearly and beyond any doubt that it is not possible to say that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children. The message that we have to send out is that abuse, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is abuse and that it will result in the full weight of the law being brought to bear on those who perpetrate it.
It is quite wrong to suggest that those who will tonight vote for equality are somehow soft on child abuse. That is a wicked calumny, and does those Opposition Members who make that suggestion no favours. It is equally wrong to suggest that those who vote in favour of equality do so because they are the prisoners of a homosexual agenda, and that their next agenda will be geared towards homosexual marriage or the lowering still further of the age of consent. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government will have no truck with any suggestion that the homosexual or heterosexual age of consent should be lowered to 14. That is simply not part of our agenda or any agenda, and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.
When we go into the Lobbies, let us be very clear about what we are voting on. We are voting on an issue of equality, on whether we believe that it is right to criminalise 16 or 17-year-old boys because they are expressing a homosexual orientation. If hon. Members believe that it is right to do that, they will vote against the proposition that there should be equality between the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual acts. If, however, hon. Members believe that it is right to respect people's differences and that it is right and proper to ensure that the law is equal as between all people, they will vote for the clause.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall detain the House for a just a moment longer—because the Minister declined to give way to me on a point on which he was demonstrably

wrong. He said that he had not heard from those who opposed the measure why it was right to criminalise people below the current age of consent that he wishes to alter. It was pointed out time and again on Second Reading, by me and others, that that is a bogus argument because it is an argument against ages of consent generally. The purpose of ages of consent is not to criminalise the people below them but to criminalise those above them and stop them interfering with those below them. He may not like that answer, but he is wrong to say that the question has not been answered. I am surprised that he did not do his homework on that matter.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 126.

Division No. 63]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Chisholm, Malcolm


Allan, Richard
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Best, Harold
Cotter, Brian


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Crausby, David


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Dafis, Cynog


Boswell, Tim
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brady, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brake, Tom
Dawson, Hilton


Brand, Dr Peter
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dismore, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Burstow, Paul
Duncan, Alan


Caborn, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Canavan, Dennis
Etherington, Bill


Caplin, Ivor
Fabricant, Michael


Caton, Martin
Fearn, Ronnie


Cawsey, Ian
Field, Rt Hon Frank






Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Loma
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Don (Bath)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
McAllion, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hancock, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Hood, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moore, Michael


Hope, Phil
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkin, Bernard
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Palmer, Dr Nick


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny
Plaskitt, James


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prior, David


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keetch, Paul
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Key, Robert
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Rendel, David


Kingham, Ms Tess
Roche, Mrs Barbara





Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd,Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Salmond, Alex
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Sanders, Adrian
Truswell, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sheerman, Barry
Tyler, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vaz, Keith


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Southworth, Ms Helen
(Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Willis, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woodward, Shaun


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Stott, Roger
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Ann Keen and Laura Moffatt.


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)





NOES


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Faber, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fight, Howard


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Forsythe, Clifford


Benton, Joe
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bercow, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cann, Jamie
Gray, James


Cash, William
Green, Damian


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Greenway, John


(Chipping Barnet)
Grieve, Dominic


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hammond, Philip


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


(Rushcliffe)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith,


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Leigh, Edward


Day, Stephen
Letwin, Oliver


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lidington, David






Loughton, Tim
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


May, Mrs Theresa
Thompson, William


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Townend, John


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Walter, Robert


Paterson, Owen
Wardle, Charles


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wells, Bowen


Randall, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Willetts, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wilshire, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wray, James


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Michael
Mr. Gerald Howarth and 


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Andrew Robathan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 reported, without amendment; to lie upon the Table.

Water Industry Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

PROVISIONS FOR WALES

'.—(1) Sections 1 to 11 above shall apply in England only.

(2) The National Assembly for Wales shall, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, consider the provisions of this Act and make decisions concerning—

(a) whether the provisions of sections 1 to 11, 16 and 17 shall apply in Wales; and
(b) whether to substitute different provisions in the case of Wales in place of the provisions of sections 1 to 11, 16 and 17, dealing with the matters provided for in each section.'.—[Mr. Dafis]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would give the National Assembly for Wales maximum discretion on water policy in Wales. I spoke on Second Reading about the significance of water as a political, economic and ecological issue of major importance to Wales. I do not intend to rehearse the series of arguments that I made; I shall simply recall the main points.
Water is a priceless asset—we are only just beginning to realise just how priceless it is. As a resource, it will be in increasingly short supply over coming years and decades. Wales should be allowed to utilise that asset responsibly—of course—and in the interests of Wales and its people, in the context of sustainable development, which the National Assembly for Wales has a specific duty to promote.
The circumstances of water supply in Wales are very different from those in much, if not all, of England. Wales has a plentiful water supply. There is no prospect of Wales suffering a shortfall in water supply, even in the worst-case scenario of increasing demand and a diminution of supply as a result of climate change and other factors. There is, however, likely to be a significant shortfall of supply in parts of England, especially the south-east. Such different circumstances will result in different priorities, as on investment, as I spelt out on Second Reading. That could mean that Wales adopts a different charging system, because charges reflect such issues as the availability of supply.
I argued on Second Reading that it is unacceptable to bundle together legislation for Wales with that for England, when the Bill makes separate provision for Scotland. The new clause would allow decisions on the Bill's provisions to be delegated to the National Assembly, which would enable it to make different provision on matters such as disconnection, charging, and so on.
An example of the need for different provision is found in the recent Environment Agency proposals for limitations on angling in rivers in England and Wales. Angling is enormously important socially, culturally and, in large parts of Wales, economically, due to tourism, for example. The Environment Agency is proposing byelaws that impose uniform limitations on angling, such as on seasons, throughout England and Wales. That is a bad


approach. Such limitations ought to be devised on the basis of river catchment areas. I believe that the proposals have more to do with the Environment Agency's administrative convenience than ecological or economic realities.
I and other hon. Members have written to the Secretary of State for Wales asking that implementation on this very important issue be postponed until after the Assembly has been able to debate it and come up with appropriate byelaws for Wales—different ones, I dare say. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will listen to what is being said to him on a cross-party basis. It is an illustration of the need for a different approach in Wales that reflects its reality.
What is the point, one might ask, of devolution, unless we can make our own different policies in Wales? Many might ask what is the point of establishing a National Assembly if it is not able to make decisions on such important subjects as water policy.
8 pm
The new clause is not especially about disagreeing with the specific proposals in the Bill. I do not disagree with the proposals in relation to disconnection, although I would have serious reservations about the process of facilitating and promoting metering as a method of charging. The new clause is about the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, and about how legislation in London that affects Wales should be drafted.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not object to key parts of this provision, because the continuation of rateable value as the basis for unmeasured charging is vital for most of our communities. I trust that he will not cast any doubt on that issue.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention, and I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I feel that we need a better basis for charging than rateable value, which is well out of date. The best proposal is to charge on the basis of council tax banding; we should adopt that method. The danger of continuing to use rateable value is that, by doing so, we postpone the day when we can adopt such a method.
However, the issue before us is how legislation that has such an important impact on Wales should be drafted. The Government of Wales Act 1998 gives English Ministries—I suppose that, technically, I should say England and Wales Ministries, but, from the point of view of Wales, they will be seen as English Ministries—specific override powers in relation to water policy in Wales. The Welsh Office guide to the powers of the National Assembly, entitled "Making a Difference in Wales", puts it thus:
The Assembly will have all relevant functions to deal with water supply and water quality in Wales.
That is good.
However, if UK Ministers believe its actions in authorising discharges into rivers flowing into England, or allowing water to be abstracted from such rivers, or its actions in time of drought, would have a serious impact on England, they would be able to intervene to prevent the Assembly acting in such a way.

It speaks similarly about the Environment Agency.
I do not believe that such override powers are the right answer to what is a reasonable question. The guide does say—rather graciously—on the previous page that the Government do not believe that the National Assembly would wish to prevent people in England from having adequate water supplies. That is big of them; I am sure that the Assembly would not want to do that. However, I do not think that override powers are necessary. Other methods could have been used. There could have been a requirement for there to be consideration—a requirement for meetings to reach a consensus on how any conflict of interest might be resolved.
I do believe, however, that the National Assembly should be able to override policy proposals in Westminster legislation if it does not agree with them. It should have that power in general terms. Would that we had had such powers many, many times in recent years. Wales would be in better shape if we had had such powers.
The time will come—the sooner, the better—when the National Assembly will have full legislative powers, as the Scottish Parliament has. I am confident that that day will come. We might as well get it done as soon as possible. However, meanwhile, any primary legislation drafted in London surely must in future give the National Assembly maximum latitude to vary provision by secondary legislation. The Government should surely accept that principle. Legislation should routinely contain such provision when drafted. It should have been done in the case of the Bill.
The new clause applies to clauses 1 to 11—the clauses that relate to England and Wales—and there are consequential changes to be made to clauses 16 and 17. The new clause would do what the drafters of the Bill should have done. We are merely putting right a deficiency in the legislative approach.
There has been much debate in Wales and Westminster on the National Assembly's limited legislative functions. Apologists for the Government's approach—giving the National Assembly only secondary powers—would argue that not having primary powers is not a big deal, because primary legislation can be drafted so as to allow the National Assembly, which will have total democratic legitimacy in Wales, to draft legislation to make provision appropriate for Wales, however different that might be.
I am not arguing for difference for the sake of difference; I am arguing for the right to be different in order to be appropriate to the special circumstances that apply in Wales. In that spirit, and bearing in mind the fact that we merely want to correct a deficiency—that we are doing what the drafters of the Bill should have done—I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. It is an opportunity to show willingness to legislate to empower the National Assembly for Wales, while retaining the primary legislative function in London. I expect and hope—well, I hope—that the Government will accept the new clause on that basis. If they do not, that augurs rather badly for future legislation.
Alternatively, the Government might like to say that they consider that the issue is serious enough to merit further consideration in what is quaintly called the other place. If the Government were to say that they would consider exempting Wales from the requirements of the Bill by tabling an amendment in the Lords, we would be very pleased.
However, I want to say something to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff—which one is it?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Cardiff, Central.

Mr. Dafis: That is right. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman and other Ministers say that they recognise that future legislation should be universally drafted so that the secondary powers of the National Assembly give it the latitude that it needs if it is to put in place the strategies to enable us to build the new Wales. I look forward to the Government's response.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: When I first arrived in the House, I was instructed that, among the many people whom I would come across, bizarrely, the nicest would be Welsh nationalists. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) is no exception to that rule, and he has treated us to the delightful—and apparently charming—prospect of a slight technical amendment to the Bill to achieve what he described as an efficiency.
As a matter of fact, the Conservative party in Wales strongly disapproves of the hon. Gentleman's views. [Laughter.] Yes, it is a matter of amusement to us that the Government's actions in these matters will have substantially recreated the Conservative party in Wales and its representation, as Ministers were good enough to admit—perhaps more than the Government originally reckoned on. However, the Conservative party in Wales differs from the hon. Member for Ceredigion on the matter of substance, in that its position is that if this is a good Bill for England, it cannot see why it would be a bad Bill for Wales.
The Minister for the Environment has waxed eloquent on the Bill's virtues, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I have never opposed the general principles underlying it, as Ministers know. Therefore we have argued that it is—taken by and large, and with some defects—good for England, and so good also for Wales.
However, it is not on that matter of substance that I want to argue very strongly against the new clause. The hon. Member for Ceredigion raised, in a short speech, just about every major constitutional mistake that could be made in taking forward the relationship between the House and the National Assembly, and his new clause, alas, accurately reflects that programme.
Water, as the Minister will very well know, is included as item 17 in schedule 2 to the Government of Wales Act 1998. Hence it is appropriate that it also appears as a subject in the remarkable set of documents that the Transfer of Functions (National Assembly for Wales) Order 1999 and its appendices have become. I do not think that the Minister was present for the entirety of our discussion on the order during the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill. However, he may recall that there was a great deal of discussion of just what that order would do. No one doubted that its sole intent—the structure of what became the Government of Wales Act ensured that it would have as its sole intent—was to allow Ministers through the order, under the aegis of the House and Parliament, to transfer authorities that now reside with a Minister at Westminster to the Welsh Assembly.
It is a critical component of the architecture of the Government of Wales Act that there was no suggestion that there would be under that transfer of functions any transfer of powers that resided elsewhere than with the Minister, and certainly no transfer of powers that resided with this Parliament under that order. That would have carried the Henry VIII principles far further than even Ministers in their most daring moments were willing to take them under that transfer of functions order.
There is a large range of powers relating to water residing with Ministers. They are well covered, if not completely, in the descriptions of all the powers that are to be transferred under the order in relation to the Water Industry Act 1991 and its sequels and accompaniments. Every one of those powers is, as it should be, a power currently with the Minister. There is no suggestion anywhere of the transfer of anything other than a power that resides with the Minister.
Unfortunately, the power that is the subject of the new clause—this takes us back to section 61 of the Water Industry Act 1991—is not the main power; it is not a power of the Minister—it is the power of the water undertakings to disconnect. The new clause would do something wholly outwith the spirit of the Government of Wales Act. It would arrange things so that the Welsh Assembly was able to legislate on a power that belongs to a third party. It would achieve that effect in another piece of legislation taken through this Parliament and not in the transfer of functions order.
There are three reasons why that is of the greatest possible constitutional significance. First, there is what we can properly describe only as the ratchet effect. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will not disagree with this part of my analysis, though he will certainly disagree with my conclusion. It is fair to say that although this is hardly a packed Chamber, even some Labour Members present would have been extremely disheartened if anyone had suggested that the Bill and the new clause would be used as a method of doing the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do—that is to diminish rather than augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly. Had that been proposed by myself or my hon. Friends this evening, the hon. Gentleman would rapidly have left his place and shot off to the nearest porthole of the BBC or its Welsh equivalent to start broadcasting vehemently about the appalling attack on everything that matters in the world being perpetrated by Members who were suggesting a diminution of the powers of the Welsh Assembly.
However, not many days—certainly not many weeks or months—after the passage of the Government of Wales Act, we find the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his entire parliamentary party coming forward with a new clause that significantly augments the powers of the Welsh Assembly. I prophesy—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not mind my so doing—that this will not be the last such attempt. I rather think that for as long as they, with their eloquence and persistence, hold their seats in this place, and for as long as the Government bring forward legislation that includes the words "England and Wales", we shall see on almost every occasion amendments brought forward to augment the powers of the Welsh Assembly in respect of a wide range of legislation.
The new clause is just the first example. That is why I am strongly labouring the point that it is a ratchet. We shall never be allowed to get away with proposing any diminution, in any other legislation, of the powers of the Welsh Assembly. However, if we are not careful, we shall see before us dozens, if not hundreds, of amendments to every form of legislation seeking insidiously to increase the powers of the Welsh Assembly.
8.15 pm
That is not anything that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would be ashamed of doing. On the contrary, it is part of their programme. I fully accept that. However, it is important that the House recognises how radical a proposal that is, and that tonight it sets a precedent—I hope very much that my remarks will have the support of Ministers—by refusing to be a party to that sort of ratchet.
If the new clause is pressed to a Division, and if, by any strange mischance, Ministers should find themselves and their colleagues in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues, Ministers will have fulfilled in the most unfortunate fashion that dreadful phrase that the former Secretary of State for Wales used when we discussed these matters on Second Reading and in Committee on the Bill that became the Government of Wales Act. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) used to say that devolution was not an end point but a process. In the circumstances that I have described, it will become a process—[Interruption.] I rather thought that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his hon. Friends would not object to that. It will become a process that will lead us ineluctably to the very point that the hon. Gentleman lightly animadverted to when he said—I think that I paraphrase him accurately enough—that in due course, almost inevitably, there will be legislative powers to transfer legislative powers to the Welsh Assembly.
Apart from the ratchet effect, the second reason why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House pays serious attention to the new clause, and why I think that it is of the greatest importance that the House rejects it, is that the new clause, if it were accepted, would drive a coach and horses through the very mechanism which the Government of Wales Act sets up and which the Government believe that they have had established in order to get a grip from Westminster over affairs in Wales.
There is a reason why the transfer of functions order is as it is. There is a reason why it is not cast in a way that mirrors the new clause. The text of the new clause says nothing about transferring functions. Instead, it states:
The National Assembly for Wales shall … consider the provisions of this Act and make decisions".
What relationship does that set up between the House and the National Assembly for Wales? It is a relationship of advice on the part of the House and consideration and decision on the part of the Welsh Assembly. By contrast, the transfer of functions order allows the House to allow a Minister to transfer some Executive authority from himself to another body. These are wholly different constitutional relationships.
The attempt behind the structure and architecture of the Government of Wales Act was to give Ministers a grip on what was transferred and hence to create a natural

obstacle to the ratchet effect by ensuring that no new powers would be automatically transferred and that no new scope would be given to the Welsh Assembly, whereas the new clause would obviously militate in exactly the opposite direction. If it were mirrored in a series of subsequent pieces of legislation, the National Assembly for Wales would gradually acquire the powers to consider the provisions of a range of English and Welsh Acts and to decide whether it would implement them. At that point, the distinction between a secondary legislative body and a primary legislative body would have virtually disappeared. That is, of course, the modest intent of the hon. Member for Ceredigion.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, accept that the Welsh Assembly will have the power to change primary legislation with regard to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1997 and some other Acts associated with that.

Mr. Letwin: I regret to say that, not surprisingly, the right hon. Gentleman is right. I and various of my hon. Friends lamented that at an earlier stage, but you will tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is not an appropriate matter for us to consider tonight.
There is no doubt that precedents are already established, but they are strictly limited. The new clause would greatly extend the scope of those precedents and carry them into legislation other than the Government of Wales Act 1998. There is no doubt what that programme is—I would say "game", but it is in deadly earnest; it is a serious constitutional programme.
The Welsh nationalists are attempting to use the new clause as the basis for getting to the point where the Welsh Assembly becomes de facto a primary legislative body. Unless Ministers were willing, as we would be if the motion were pressed to a Division, to state clearly that that is unacceptable, they would be driving a coach and horses through the structure of their own Government of Wales Act.
There is a third point. This is a question not merely about the form of what is being done, but about the scope. In new clause 1, it is suggested that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider, first, whether the provisions of an English and Welsh Act should apply, and secondly, whether to substitute different provisions. The substitution of different provisions carries us a stage beyond what I have described—not simply into a matter of form, but into a matter of substance.
The new clause, surprisingly, is a new constitution for Wales in the making. It gives the Welsh Assembly directly, in UK law, the ability to make law. At that point, the distinction between primary and secondary legislation disappears. It is a remarkably cunningly drafted clause. It has been drafted in such a way that as the ratchet effect occurs and as such a provision is introduced for Bill after Bill, a new constitution will have been made without ever having been discussed or declared. Quite apart from whether the Welsh people want a primary legislative body in Wales—they were never asked—that is no way for a constitution to be made. That is my third point.
Even if it were right that the Welsh Assembly should have the power to consider and decide on the provisions of the Act, and even if it were right that it should, in general, have the power to substitute for Acts new


de facto primary legislation, it would not be right that that should be introduced in this manner. It should be introduced only after mature consideration, possibly with a referendum and certainly with a White Paper and a great deal of debate and discussion.
The third reason that Ministers would be acting wrongly if they had the slightest inclination to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and his colleagues is that they would be admitting that it was proper to introduce such constitutional change on the sly.

Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a powerful constitutional point. Has he considered the practical question of what would happen if Welsh Water, by this means, charged or applied regulations differently in Wales and in the large area around Bristol that it supplies? For example, Welsh Water could use the council tax in Wales, but would still have to use the rateable values in Bristol and elsewhere.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right. That brings us to the question of the borders. I treat the subject with some hesitation because there are hon. Members present who remember that it was not my most glorious moment when I mistook the location of certain schools. That was due to a postal address confusion. That episode, shameful as it was in my case, illustrated all too clearly the very problems to which my hon. Friend refers.
There are issues of great complexity that relate to the borders, and problems might arise in practice if the new clause were enacted and if, as a result of its enactment, the Welsh Assembly decided to take steps that led to Welsh Water behaving quite differently from the English undertakings.
There is nothing in the new clause—this is what is so remarkable about it—that substantively causes that problem. The clause is drafted in a constitutional spirit. It says nothing about the outcome or about what the Welsh Assembly should or would decide. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made that clear. It is, so to speak, a permissive clause. It is, in other words, a transfer of powers.
The new clause is a constitutional clause. It is intended to be that and has been drafted well. Unfortunately, it has none of the surroundings that would make it legitimate. If the House has any purpose—especially at 8.26 on an evening when it is hardly full—it is to bring to light the fact that something is being done that has consequences far beyond the apparently modest intent of the clause.
I apologise to the House for having laboured the point. I know that some hon. Members present would have wished me to be more concise or to say nothing. However, it is of the utmost importance that these matters be put on record. I hope that we will hear from Labour Members who share the constitutional concerns that I have expressed—I see some of them in their places. I hope that it will be established that those concerns are not merely the concerns of the Opposition, but are widely shared in the House.
I hope that when subsequent Bills are considered, and similar clauses are moved, people will be able to point back to the debate tonight as proof that we were awake and alive to the problems, and that we understood the implications, rejected them and set no such precedent.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how much he agrees with everything that I have said and how strongly he will move his colleagues into the No Lobby

if there is a Division. If that occurs, we can let the Government off the hook of any complicity in this gunpowder plot, little and delightful as it may appear to be.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall be brief, but I shall make some fundamental points. We Liberal Democrats support new clause 1, which would restrict sections 1 to 11 and 16 and 17 to England, and determine that such a decision should be in the ambit of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Livsey: I have just started my speech. I will give way at an appropriate moment. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that this would occur in Bill after Bill. We are considering the Water Industry Bill. He said that arrangements in England and Wales had to be virtually the same, but we have our own water company—Dwr Cymru or Welsh Water—which already behaves differently. It prefers to run a charging policy based on rateable value. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, we want such flexibility because it might, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said, be based on council tax banding, for example. In short, it might be more appropriate.
8.30 pm
That brings me to the subject of metering. Welsh Water would prefer to stick with the rateable value. I believe that it is open-minded about the council tax banding issue. But because Wales requires a huge water pipe infrastructure, because the sparsity of population in many places requires miles and miles of piping, different circumstances obtain in Wales.
New clause 1 says that the Welsh Assembly should have an input into how the matter is proceeded with. I am a keen fisherman, and the issues of compensatory flow, for example, in Welsh rivers, and the abstraction of water from rivers in different places, are important. I have asked many questions in the past about whether compensatory flow is adequate in certain circumstances to sustain the ecology, the fish population and many other matters. Sometimes we must look carefully to see whether rules exist.
As the hon. Member for West Dorset knows full well, there is a precedent. The Government of Wales Act 1998 acknowledges, for example, that if reservoirs are constructed in Wales the Welsh Assembly should be consulted as to their acceptability.

Mr. Letwin: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be embarking on a speech even more profoundly inclined to make people sleep than mine, but will he keep the House awake an instant further and tell us whether it is Liberal Democrat policy that a precedent should be set in this case permitting the constitutional transfer of powers—legislative powers—from this House to the Welsh Assembly; or is he merely making the point about this Bill, and is willing to state that it is not his party's policy to allow such a precedent to be set?

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Liberal Democrats are federalists and believe that decision


making should occur at the appropriate level in the Government of the United Kingdom. Perhaps even the hon. Gentleman will admit that water, Wales's greatest natural resource, is an important issue to the Members of the Welsh Assembly. They will want to contribute to and influence policy on, for example, water regulations. Water is a politically sensitive issue in Wales, of which the House is surely aware. New clause 1 is a way of satisfying the needs and circumstances of Wales where they differ from those of England.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I beg him to answer the question, which is perfectly fair and clear. Is he trying to establish a precedent, or does he think that this is a one-off measure which should not be regarded as a precedent?

Mr. Livsey: I do not wish to extend my speech to the length of the hon. Gentleman's. I merely say that we are discussing the Water Industry Bill and I am addressing—

Mr. Simon Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Livsey: No, I shall not give way now.
We are specifically debating the Water Industry Bill. The hon. Member for West Dorset led me on to other paths, to which I have referred. If the hon. Gentleman insists that we have no influence in Wales on policy governing our greatest natural resource, that is an extreme view indeed.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: New clause 1, proposed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), effectively allows the National Assembly for Wales to pass its own water industry Acts, amending or undoing all the provisions in the Bill which apply to England and Wales. Effectively, the hon. Gentleman wishes to redraft not the Bill, but the Government of Wales Act. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman would wish to do that. I understand his motivation. I can well understand that many of his constituents who voted for him would sympathise with him.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued at length that this is a major constitutional step and that the real argument is about the Government of Wales Act. I can understand why Plaid Cymru wishes to raise the matter, but I cannot understand why the Tory party wishes to go through the devolution argument at such length on a Bill concerned with the management of water.
However, the House is well aware that the Assembly will not be empowered to pass primary legislation. The new clause goes well beyond the powers given to the Welsh Assembly in the Government of Wales Act. That Bill allows the Assembly to work within a framework of primary legislation which has been passed here. Thus each Bill needs to reflect the role and status of the Assembly in Wales, and to give it the necessary powers to reflect the needs of Wales. In this case, we believe that we have done so.
The Bill provides for the industry in England and Wales to operate within a consistent charging framework, providing consistent protection against disconnection and giving the same rights to customers.
At the same time, the Assembly will have significant powers in this area. We propose that the Secretary of State's powers in clauses 4 and 5 should transfer to the Assembly in respect of water undertakers operating wholly or mainly in Wales—currently Dwr Cymru and Dee Valley Water.
The Assembly's powers include the power to give its own guidance to the Director General of Water Services in approving water undertakers' charges schemes. The director general must have regard to such guidance. They also include the power to make regulations concerning charges schemes.
Those regulations may cover, for example, items for which water consumers do or do not have to pay; the way in which charges are calculated and on what basis; alternative methods of charging, which should be made available to customers; a requirement for special provision to be made to assist those whom the Assembly considers to need special protection; and the criteria for entitlement to special provision and the means to establish it. Thus there are powers within the Bill to allow the Welsh Assembly to reflect the different needs of Wales in the management of water resources.

Mr. Dafis: I ask for clarification; it is better to have it at this stage than later. Is the Minister saying that the Assembly could ensure that a charging policy significantly different from that in England might be pursued in Wales? May we in Wales not implement any proposal that would encourage and facilitate the slide towards metering? Could the Assembly ensure that we move towards a fair system of charging, based on council tax banding, for example? Is he saying that the Assembly would be able to ensure such an outcome?

Mr. Jones: The Government are still open to considering whether we should move towards a charging system based on council tax banding, but the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Bill allows for free metering to be established on both sides of the border. I am surprised that he would want Welsh consumers not to have the right that would apply on the other side of the border. I realise that his constituency of Ceredigion is not that close to the border, and he might feel a bit more wary about presenting such a policy were he representing a constituency such as Brecon and Radnorshire. Clearly, Plaid Cymru's ambitions do not extend much further east than the Cambrian mountains.
We consider that—

Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman had sufficient time to make his contribution, but I will give way.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My question is purely for clarification. Before he took the intervention from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), was the Minister referring to clause 5 and the powers of the Secretary of State by regulations to make provisions for charging? Does he accept that any such transfer would of course be by a transfer of functions order or by the enlargement of the draft transfer of functions order?

Mr. Jones: As I understand it, there are powers that would allow the Welsh Assembly to make different provision for charging procedures within Wales.
We consider that these powers represent a significant and appropriate transfer of responsibilities, complementing the many other responsibilities relating to the water industry which the Assembly will inherit. In the light of that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will withdraw his new clause.

Mr. Burns: I had not intended to make a speech at this stage, but the Minister said something so fundamental that it is important to clear the matter up now, so that we are under no misapprehensions as to what he said.
I understood from our debate in Committee that clause 5 and the words
the Secretary of State by regulations
apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that he, within the ambit of the Bill, will make the regulations and give the instructions to the regulator. It never occurred to me during those debates that there was any intention to transfer those powers to the Secretary of State for Wales or any other individual.
I would appreciate it if the junior Minister intervened to settle the matter, on a point of information. He will agree, in the light of our debate, that the matter is very important.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: I will, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Mr. Rowlands: Through the hon. Gentleman, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether some of these issues will be the subject of a concordat?

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Through me, he invited the Minister to reply. I should be grateful if the Minister replied to my point and then dealt with the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I ask the Minister to clear this point up, so that there can be no mistake and no misunderstanding. Will he clarify the reference in clause 5 to "the Secretary of State"? Which Secretary of State is referred to? Are there any proposals to transfer the powers in clause 5 to the Secretary of State for Wales? That is an urgent and important point for the Assembly.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: So that there will be no misunderstanding, I should say that the powers to be transferred will be only secondary powers and powers of the Secretary of State to give guidance. No powers to make or set aside primary legislation will be transferred.

Mr. Burns: Is the Minister saying that, for Wales, there will be a transfer of functions from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burns: Will the Minister clarify?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions should come voluntarily: in the other direction, as it were. The hon. Gentleman makes matters untidy by inviting interventions. He should make his point so that we can get on with the business.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that that is untidy, but the Minister unexpectedly made some comments that made the whole subject somewhat untidy and confusing. I thought that the easiest way to tidy it up would be to take that slightly unconventional approach. However, I fully accept your ruling.
Obviously, we will read Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow morning because a potential problem has unexpectedly arisen with regard to the Welsh Assembly and the Secretary of State. The problem may not exist and if we can clear that matter up, it will put all our minds at rest.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this debate to an end. I had not realised what a constitutional can of worms I was opening in moving the new clause. My intention was much more modest than that for which the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gives me credit. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman regards with horror the idea that Wales should be allowed to evolve, for example, its own charging policy. He seems to think it an awful prospect that Wales should be allowed to develop different policies of that sort.
Such a decision could be important if the Assembly is, for example, to deliver its social justice agenda. For example, it is important for the Assembly to be able to consider what charging policy is likely to be equitable and to favour low-income families who have high water demands—of course within the context of environmental sustainability.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who gives way with his customary courtesy. I want to clarify that I do not view with any horror the making of regulations by the Welsh Assembly, under a transfer of functions order, when, under clause 5 of the Bill, a Secretary of State here would be given that power. That is entirely within the spirit of the Government of Wales Act 1998. I regard with horror the hon. Gentleman's new clause, which goes far beyond that in its constitutional intent.

Mr. Dafis: If the Government were prepared to table an amendment to achieve what I am trying to achieve in my new clause, but in a less constitutionally earth-shaking manner, I should be happy to hear about it from the Under-Secretary of State. It is terribly important for the Assembly to be able to deliver its own agenda on an issue of this sort.
The hon. Member for West Dorset said that the Government of Wales Act gave Ministers a "grip"—I did not particularly like the metaphor—on the situation and that he wanted them to retain that grip and not let the Assembly gradually slide into acquiring greater powers and discretion. He spoke at length about transfer of functions and so forth. It was not my understanding that


my new clause recommended any transfer as such. I was looking for a mechanism to allow the Assembly latitude to work within the functions that it already has. If that cannot be achieved without a transfer of functions, then the case for such a transfer is obviously strengthened. I make no secret of the fact that I want such a transfer.
It is important to understand that the agenda for the next five years is to establish a useful working relationship between the Assembly and this place to enable devolution to be a success. In its first stages, that will involve give and take on both sides. It involves designing and drafting legislation—without transferring functions—that will enable the Assembly to have as much discretion as possible. It should have considerable discretion in education and other policy areas.

Mr. Rowlands: That was the whole concept of concordats. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about that?

Mr. Dafis: Yes, I have, but I will not pursue that issue in detail at this stage, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Legislation should be designed in such a way as to give the Assembly maximum latitude and flexibility. I listened carefully to Minister, because I was hoping to have absolute clarification. I asked him whether the Assembly could ensure a distinct charging policy in Wales. I got the impression that that was not the case, and that that could not be done satisfactorily. If it is not the case, I am not satisfied.

Mr. Letwin: I admire the hon. Gentleman's interpretive and exegetical skills. I was wholly unable to discern any clear meaning in what the Minister said. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would invite the Minister—if your patience would allow, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to clarify what on earth he was on about.

Mr. Dafis: If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall allow him to do so. I shall not urge him to intervene, however, given what Mr. Deputy Speaker has said.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: If it helps the House, I shall reiterate that clause 5 refers to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State is a single entity. The Government of Wales Act 1998 transfers the powers of the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly. The National Assembly will have the regulation-making powers in clause 5.

Mr, Dafis: Right then, I have a further question. Will the Assembly be able to depart from the provisions in the Bill to facilitate metering? I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of metering, but will the Assembly be able not to allow free metering and the right to revoke the arrangement after a year? It is important to have that power. I do not want more and more metering to be encouraged, because the price that those who are not on meters would have to pay would put them at a disadvantage. That would be a regressive social policy.
My understanding is that such latitude would not be available to the Assembly. I am therefore unable to withdraw the motion, and we shall force it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 313.

Division No. 64]
[8.53 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Moore, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Oaten, Mark


Brake, Tom
Öpik, Lembit


Brand, Dr Peter
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Dafis, Cynog
Stunell, Andrew


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Webb, Steve


Feam, Ronnie
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Donald Gorrie and.


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones 




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Colvin, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cummings, John


Blackman, Liz
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blizzard, Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Borrow, David
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Burns, Simon
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Canavan, Dennis
Drew, David


Cann, Jamie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Edwards, Huw


Chaytor, David
Efford, Clive


Chisholm, Malcolm
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Clapham, Michael
Ennis, Jeff


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Etherington, Bill


Clark, Dr Lynda
Field, Rt Hon Frank


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Fitzpatrick, Jim






Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flint, Caroline
Linton, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Livingstone, Ken


Follett, Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAllion, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gerrard, Neil
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gray, James
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Marek, Dr John


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin


Home Robertson, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hood, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
Norris, Dan


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pickthall, Colin


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pound, Stephen


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prior, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kemp, Fraser
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooney, Terry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Laxton, Bob
Roy, Frank


Leigh, Edward
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Letwin, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)





Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Salter, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Savidge, Malcolm
Todd, Mark


Sawford, Phil
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Shaw, Jonathan
Truswell, Paul


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Vis, Dr Rudi


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
White, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wilkinson, John


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wilshire, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woodward, Shaun


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Stoate, Dr Howard
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. David Hanson and 


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Graham Allen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

DISCONNECTION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert
'any premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 32.
No. 13, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) a children's home within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.'.
No. 14, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) a nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984.'.
No. 15, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) a premises dedicated to further education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.
No. 16, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) a premises dedicated to higher education within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.'.


No. 17, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) residential care homes as defined under the Registered Homes Act 1984.'.
No. 18, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) local authority residential care homes as defined under the National Assistance Act 1948'.'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) dwelling—houses for persons of pensionable age (sheltered accommodation) as defined under the Housing Act 1985.'.
No. 20, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) halls and accommodation for students owned by a university as defined under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.'.
No. 21, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) prisons for the purposes of the Prison Act 1952.'.
No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) daycare centres as defined under the Children Act 1989.'.
No. 23, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) business premises occupied by doctors as defined under the Medical Act 1983.'.
No. 24, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
'or
(d) business premises occupied by dentists as defined under the Dentists Act 1984.'.

Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Government manuscript amendment.

Government amendment No. 35.

Government new schedule 1—Premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of charges.

Mr. Meacher: I shall speak to all the Government amendments—Nos. 31 to 35, the manuscript amendment and new schedule 1—as they are all essentially part of the same package. They also deal with the substance of the Opposition amendments Nos. 13 to 24, so my remarks will address each of the premises described in those amendments. The Government manuscript amendment, which deals with a minor and consequential matter, should be made at the same time as the other, substantive Government amendments, and, with the leave of the House, I should like to make that correction at the first opportunity, rather than leaving it to be dealt with in another place.
In Committee, we had a lengthy debate about the extent of protection against disconnection. Our main focus has been to protect household customers, so that vulnerable families and individuals do not face the possibility of being deprived of water, which is harmful to their well-being and damaging to public health. The Government are determined to improve the health of the nation, and this measure will play a part in that overall strategy.
We recognise that premises other than households also fully deserve extra protection from disconnection and the use of limiting devices to enforce payment. Depriving such premises of their water supply could be harmful to particularly vulnerable groups that are of concern to society as a whole or to essential services. It is obvious that schools and hospitals fall into that category, so we have ensured that such premises could not be faced with the threat of disconnection.
In debate, the case was put for extending protection to a further range of premises that also provide important services to the community. I agreed that I would carefully and sympathetically consider such cases and would be prepared to table amendments to the Bill to ensure that, where it was necessary for good social reasons, protection would be offered against disconnection and the use of limiting devices, such as trickle valves, to enforce payment. We have done that in amendments Nos. 31 to 35, new schedule 1 and the manuscript amendment, which would offer extended protection, notably in medical care, personal care and education.
I shall briefly spell out the implications of that wide set of proposed changes. First, on medical premises, we propose to prevent disconnection for non-payment by nursing homes and mental nursing homes; premises used by registered medical practitioners and dentists; premises used as a pilot scheme for primary care under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; ambulance services and other emergency services.
Much nursing care is provided in hospitals, as they are described in section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984. A relatively small number of premises fall outside that definition but offer vital nursing care to those who are mentally or physically ill. Those nursing homes provide care for vulnerable members of society and the Government consider that it is right to prevent such patients from being put at risk from the threat of disconnection of the water supply for non-payment of bills.
We have also considered carefully the case for extending protection to premises used by doctors and dentists. They do not, of course, provide the same degree of residential care as hospitals or nursing homes. However, they can and do provide an essential level of front-line care, and they do carry out a technically important role in the community. Primary care services play a vital role in protecting and improving the nation's health. On balance, therefore, we think that the case has been made for the protection of such premises against disconnection for non-payment of bills.
For similar reasons, we propose to extend protection also to surgeries—not necessarily headed by general practitioners—under the primary care pilot scheme.
The ambulance service represents a further crucial component of medical care, particularly in emergency cases. Disconnection of premises at which the ambulance service is based could lead to deterioration in service or in response times, which could put members of the public in danger. I should be the first to recognise that the ambulance service is not the only service which saves lives and protects the public in emergency situations, as


the same is true of police and fire services. We therefore propose to extend protection against disconnection to ambulance services, police forces and fire brigades.

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I should be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is always diligent.

Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his compliment—I am as diligent as I possibly can be in the circumstances. Perhaps he will enlighten the House by explaining the circumstances in which fire, police or ambulance services could be disconnected. Is the provision not a worthless act? Moreover, he has exempted only premises occupied by the fire brigade but not, so far as I am able to tell from reading the Bill, fire hydrants. Therefore, if the fire service fails to pay its bill, is it not possible that, when it turns up at a fire, it will discover that the fire hydrant has been turned off?

Mr. Meacher: The issue of fire hydrants—their availability and usability—is covered by other Acts of Parliament.

Mr. Gray: What about this Bill?

Mr. Meacher: In this Bill, we are dealing with whether there should be protection from disconnection because of non-payment of bills. We are simply proposing that, in the case of all front-line emergency services, there should not be any risk of disconnection for non-payment. As I said many times when we were discussing the issue in Committee, in my view, the likelihood of such disconnections occurring in the case of the public services that we are talking about—the police service or the fire brigade—is exceedingly unlikely. The history of the past 10 years shows that the number of times on which there have been disconnections in such cases is virtually zero.
Nevertheless, taking the spirit of what was pressed on me in Committee, I want there to be absolutely no risk that those who could be endangered because of disconnection will be so endangered. It is for that reason that I have now erred on the side of including all institutions that could in any way cause difficulties to members of the public in emergency situations or to those who are vulnerable, disabled or ill. They should be fully protected.

Mr. Gray: The Minister is, of course, right to say that there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which premises occupied by the fire brigade would be disconnected. Equally, there are almost no imaginable circumstances in which a fire hydrant would be disconnected. The nature of my earlier intervention was therefore to ask why he has decided to specify that the premises occupied by the fire brigade will not be disconnected but omitted to specify that fire hydrants will not be disconnected. My reading of the provision is that if the fire service fails to pay its water bill because of some clerical error, although the fire headquarters will not be disconnected, it is perfectly possible that hydrants in the street will be disconnected. Will he correct my misapprehension—if that is what it is?

Mr. Meacher: The implication of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that every building—including

every private sector building and every commercial building—with a fire hydrant should be protected against disconnection for non-payment. That goes a great deal further even than the latitude that I have been prepared to allow. In respect of non-household premises, we believe that water companies should have the right to disconnect on the basis of non-payment. The only cases where I am prepared to consider protection is where members of the public who are vulnerable or in an emergency situation could be disadvantaged or endangered. I am not prepared to go beyond that principle.
9.15 pm
I wish to refer to premises providing personal care. In this area, very strong arguments have made for protecting children's homes. I have made clear the importance that we attach to protecting children, and propose to prohibit the disconnection of children's homes. As some hon. Members may be aware, there are processes for local authorities to remove children from homes that do not provide an acceptable level of care. A home which could not provide children with water would clearly be failing in this respect. That provides considerable assurance that these vulnerable members of our society will not have to suffer the consequences of disconnection.
I am erring on the side of caution, but there are no absolute guarantees that the relevant local authority would become aware immediately that a home had had its water supply disconnected. I therefore consider that it is right to extend protection in this way to provide full assurance on this point to children living in children's homes.
On due reflection, we propose also to extend protection to residential care homes. By prohibiting disconnection of nursing homes, we shall protect those receiving nursing care. However, there is a wider group of vulnerable people who need the board and personal care provided by residential care homes. These include residents of homes for older people and, for example, residential premises providing personal care for people with learning disabilities.
There is a process of registration for residential care homes provided by the private sector, similar to that for children's homes. That provides considerable assurance that residents will not experience deprivation where homes fail to secure a supply a water because they would be deregistered. However, for exactly the same reasons that I have outlined, we think that it is right to provide the added reassurance by prohibiting disconnection of such premises.
I refer now to prisons and immigration detention centres. This further category of accommodation was brought to my attention in Committee. Prisoners do not automatically spring to mind as those among the most vulnerable in society. However, they do not have a choice in where they reside. [Laughter.] We hope that that continues to be the case. A significant proportion of the prison population could be affected if one prison had its water disconnected, requiring the transfer of inmates to other establishments.
I can, therefore, see that there is a legitimate case for protecting such premises. The amendment therefore prohibits disconnection for the non-payment of bills for prisons, remand centres, young offender institutions and secure training centres. For the same reasons, protection will be extended to immigration detention centres.
I wish to refer to education and children's day care. In education, we propose to protect premises used for children's day care and premises used for further and higher education—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Schools, where attendance is compulsory, are already protected under the Bill. However, the Government are not focusing our efforts only on children of compulsory school age. The national child care strategy recognises that pre-school provision can have a major influence on children's development through their school years and beyond. Day care centres do not involve compulsory attendance, but we think that the case is made for extending protection in such cases, to ensure that children have appropriate facilities.
At the other end of the spectrum, further and higher education premises also do not involve compulsory attendance, but it would cause substantial upheaval if they became victims of disconnection through no fault of their own so, on balance, we support the prohibition of disconnection for such establishments, including student halls of residence.

Mr. Burns: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meacher: Compared with his continual interventions in Committee, the hon. Gentleman's abstinence has been remarkable, so I am glad to give way.

Mr. Burns: I cannot remember from our discussions in Committee whether the definition of schools includes boarding schools.

Mr. Meacher: It includes boarding schools and schools in both the public and the private sector. We have made no distinction.
I want to add, for the sake of completeness, that I made two important commitments on the clause in Committee. I assured the Committee that the Government would not allow sheltered housing for the elderly to be disconnected and I said that we wanted to protect tenants in bedsits. I want to confirm that the amendments that we have proposed would indeed cover those properties. In line with our general approach on dwellings, disconnection of such premises will not be permitted in the case of properties that are someone's only or principal home.
We have taken the considered view, following the line of argument so eloquently and determinedly put to me in Committee, that we should provide for increased protection against disconnection and against the use of limiting devices to enforce payment, but I am sure that the House will recognise that our proposals continue to be carefully targeted on homes and premises that provide a vital role in the community.
We do not seek to inhibit the operations of water companies more than is necessary to meet the key welfare concerns that have been raised. Water companies in England and Wales will still have the ability to disconnect the vast majority of non-household premises for failure to pay bills. We still think that that is right.
In providing protection against disconnection, we have looked at the purpose of specific premises. We have not discriminated between the private and public sector

bodies, or charitable organisations, that provide those key services. The Government have emphasised the importance that we attach to the prompt payment of bills for Departments and public sector bodies.
I do not expect that there will be any adverse impact on water companies' income as a result of the measures, despite the long list of exemptions and protections, but the proposals in the Government amendments are designed to provide absolute assurance to members of the public who may be adversely affected as a result of disconnection and to ensure that, in cases in which we believe as a matter of principle that it is right to protect against disconnection, appropriate measures are put in place.
I hope that I have listened attentively to all that was pressed on me and that I have responded positively and met the will of the House.

Mr. Burns: It is an especial pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. A significant number of amendments were tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends after our discussions in Committee. The Minister generously said in Committee that he would reflect on the points made by Opposition Members on a range of matters.
If I remember rightly, it was two days ago that the Government tabled the new schedule and the ancillary amendments which, because of the procedures of the House, effectively leapfrogged the amendments tabled by the Conservative party, which urged the Government to adopt this point of view.
I must confess that when the Bill was first published and when we were studying it in the run-up to Second Reading and the Committee stage, we were puzzled not only that the Government had specified in clause 1 that the Bill would apply to domestic dwellings that were the prime residence of individuals, but that it would apply to two other categories—schools and hospitals.
As the Minister rightly said in Committee, no school or hospital has had its water supply disconnected because of non-payment of bills. We would all be extremely surprised if that had been the case. Nevertheless, the Government felt that it was important that these two types of institutions should be specified in the Bill so that there could be no confusion about the Government's intention.
We were genuinely puzzled that the Government should restrict the specified bodies to the two types in question, important though they are. On reflection, we came to believe that there were several other equally important types of institution which, were the water to be disconnected because of non-payment, could cause serious public health risks and other problems. Given that the Government had conceded the point by specifying hospitals and schools, we felt that it was important that, for example, children's homes and registered homes for the elderly should also be mentioned.
Some of the most frail and vulnerable members of society live in registered homes. By definition, they are not responsible for payment of the water bills, but they could be adversely affected if the owners of residential homes, or those responsible for running those homes, omitted to pay the bills, because of irresponsibility, a genuine mishap or forgetfulness.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that our bewilderment about schools and hospitals being specified in the Bill remains, as there is absolutely no purpose to


the provision? Does he further agree that the categories set out in the new schedule and, indeed, in our amendments are perhaps much more worthwhile on the ground that there is a greater likelihood of, for example, a privately run care home omitting to pay the bill and being disconnected? There is a curious conundrum in the Government's proposals.

Mr. Burns: I understand what my hon. Friend says. This is not a criticism, but one can get into difficulty if one starts to differentiate between various organisations on the ground of their supposed importance. However, my hon. Friend's point, which is 100 per cent. valid, is that experience shows that no school or hospital has ever been disconnected because of non-payment of its water bills, or of its water rates under the old system. However, as my hon. Friend correctly identified, there is a greater possibility of someone running, for example, a residential home for the elderly not paying the bill, because of forgetfulness or, in an extreme case, negligence. Prior to the Bill, that failure could potentially have led to the disconnection of the water supply.
I am grateful that the Minister has been prepared to listen to the arguments deployed in Committee and is prepared to include in the new schedule institutions of further and higher education—universities, colleges and their halls of residence.
9.30 pm
Again, it is possible that there could be a problem with halls of residence, if not with the main buildings. However, responsibility under the Bill for halls of residence is restricted to established halls of residence on campus, run by the college or university concerned. It does not include any private, freelance arrangements that students might make to rent accommodation in the town or city. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that analysis is correct.
We welcome the inclusion of nursing homes in the provision, and we tabled amendments in Committee to that end. I give credit to the Minister for including sheltered accommodation for elderly people. He did so without a fight, and it is a wise decision.
In Committee, the Minister raised the question of prisons. As he said earlier, prisoners do not usually stay in prison by choice, although—sadly—a small minority probably do. It would be catastrophic if prisons were to have their water supply cut off, but I suspect that the chance of that happening is non-existent. However, it is sensible to adopt a belt-and-braces approach: it means that the Minister will not have to return for extra powers within days of the Bill reaching the statute book if—sod's law being what it is—a prison were to have its water supply cut off.
Conservative Members pointed out in Committee—as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—that doctors and dentists desperately rely on water to carry out their professional functions. Again, it is possible that, through forgetfulness or inefficiency, a water supply could be disconnected for non-payment, and the difficulties would be especially acute for dentists. Some patients may need urgent treatment, and any delay or postponement would cause inconvenience.
We tabled our amendments in Committee for those reasons, and we are grateful that the Minister was prepared to listen to our arguments. I do not mean to be

critical, but it is clear that, when the Bill was drafted, the Minister felt that it would be better if only a minimum number of categories were to be added to that of domestic dwellings.
On reflection, on the basis of our arguments in Committee, the Minister has clearly been persuaded by the logic and compelling reasonableness of our suggestions. To be fair to the Minister, and to his credit, he has on certain issues—prisons and sheltered accommodation especially—been prepared to go further. He has not been constricted by the language of the civil service and has not taken a narrow and blinkered view. He has decided in one go to accept the arguments.
Obviously, it would be churlish in the light of my remarks to say that the Opposition do not welcome the fact that the Government have adopted our amendments—albeit more finely drafted. The provisions have been more neatly encompassed in new schedule 1, rather than in a clumsy list in clause 1. I assure the Minister that, given that we are in total agreement on this issue, we shall not be opposing any Government amendment. In addition, for the obvious reason that the Government's drafting of amendments is superior, we shall not be pressing our amendments to a vote.

Mr. Brian White: In view of the length of speeches, I shall be brief.
I welcome the Government's amendments and the way in which they are designed to protect individuals. I thank the Minister for receiving representations from people who are part of the Anglian Water experiment in Milton Keynes and Wellingborough, and who feel that they will lose out as a result of the Bill. As customers of Anglian Water with pre-payment meters, they feel that the sanction of the limiting device is the only way in which they are able to budget successfully. They fear that the Bill when enacted will put them back on the slippery slope to a life of debt. The Bill does not address that.
In Committee, the Minister said that if the Government could find alternative mechanisms that assisted budgeting and did not lead to disconnections, they would be prepared to consider them. However, he said that responsibility for that lay with the water companies. If we are serious about social exclusion, we must protect the people to whom I have referred and find ways of assisting them with budgeting.
If research is left to water companies, it will be conducted for their benefit. Their finance systems and interests will dictate such research. The Government have a role to play in the research in order to protect the people who are concerned about losing out under the legislation. Although I accept that the provisions apply to a very small minority, I urge the Government to take part in the research, put their weight behind it and find alternative mechanisms that will help to deal with this small but vital area of social exclusion.

Mr. Tom Brake: I should like to start by claiming a Liberal Democrat campaign success: Government new schedule 1. I was also very flattered to note that, in the past few days, the Conservatives have quite unashamedly retabled many of the Liberal Democrat amendments that were tabled on 15 December, in order to extend the list of excluded premises.

Mr. Burns: Let me please clarify the situation. I know that the Liberal Democrats will be terribly upset about not


tabling any amendments on Report. I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that both his party and mine tabled amendments that were debated in Committee, and once the Committee reported and the Minister had given a commitment, it was open to both parties to retable them. We tabled all the amendments as soon as the Committee finished its sittings. The hon. Gentleman still has not done so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not going to allow a post mortem on who tabled what. We have amendments before us and we must discuss those amendments.

Mr. Brake: It is a pity that the intervention was made. I simply respond by saying that Liberal Democrat Members favour a less tribal form of politics, and would certainly welcome a free and unfettered exchange of ideas, but would like to get the credit for it when appropriate.
Although I welcome the new schedule, I am surprised that, when the Bill was being drafted—I understand that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has mentioned this—the Minister and his massed ranks of civil servants did not believe that it was appropriate to add to the list of exclusions other categories, such as sheltered accommodation, prisons, dentists, doctors, and so on. The Government have now done so, and I am pleased that they have done so; they have agreed to take our suggestions on board. I hope that, in future, attention will be paid to detail at the appropriate moment.
I must also question the role of some of the Labour Back Benchers on the Committee, who remained silent almost throughout its consideration of the Bill. However, I give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have been twisting the Minister's arm behind closed doors, and it may be for that reason that some of the amendments have emerged tonight.

Mr. Burns: I thought that the hon. Gentleman did not like confrontational politics.

Mr. Brake: But I am about to finish on a positive note.
In Committee, the Government would give no firm undertaking that they would support Liberal Democrat proposals to protect the groups that I have mentioned. I am very pleased that they have listened to our arguments, and to our concerns and those of Conservative Members. This is a refreshing and novel approach to government, and I would commend it to the House. We are very happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Mr. Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment. He has an inexorable way of congratulating himself under all circumstances—he has that in common with the rest of his party. However, on this occasion, I am happy to congratulate him on the brevity of his remarks, if nothing else.
I am also pleased to congratulate the Government who, I am glad to say, listened so carefully to what Her Majesty's Opposition said in Committee that they have tabled new schedule 1, which seems to incorporate all the powerful and passionate arguments that we advanced in

Committee. I only wish that, in some of the other Committees on which I serve, the Government were as ready to listen to the great sense and power of our advocacy as they appear to have been in this case.
I have severe reservations about whether domestic disconnections should be outlawed. However, if they were outlawed, it would be absurd if some of these very noble and distinguished public organisations were none the less allowed to suffer from disconnections. Equally, it would be absurd if, although schools could not be disconnected, institutions of further and higher education could be; and if, although hospitals could not be disconnected, organisations such as nursing homes could be. I therefore welcome the inherent logic in the Government's accepting our amendments Nos. 13 to 24—or, rather, replacing them with new schedule 1. There is a great deal of logic and sense in that, and Conservative Members welcome the Government's sense in listening to what we said and, to a limited degree, to be fair, to what Liberal Democrat Members said on the subject.
None the less, a huge absurdity underlies this debate. Several times in Committee, a certain phrase was used—the words escape my mind, but there was a definite absurdity in the way in which the debate took place, for the following reason. Of course those worthwhile organisations should not be disconnected, but there is no circumstance, and no one—in Committee, or in the Chamber tonight—has been able to outline any circumstance, under which any of those institutions would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a hospital would be disconnected. There is no likelihood that a fire brigade—the headquarters or the fire hydrants—would be disconnected. None of the institutions listed in new schedule 1 has the remotest likelihood, under any circumstances, of being disconnected.
There is a curious feel about the debate. We are legislating against something that could not possibly occur. It is a waste of a debate and of a new schedule. The initial exemption of schools and hospitals that led to the new schedule and the debate was in itself an absurdity.
9.45 pm
The second absurdity is that if we accept that there is no likelihood that the listed premises will be disconnected, but none the less the Government are to legislate against the possibility that that will happen—this may have more to do with Labour's determination to live with regulation and legislation bearing on every minute detail of our lives; it loves control from the centre and loves saying, "This is what you, the water companies, will do"—and if we assume that it is reasonable that they should do so, and that they should say that schools, hospitals and the other worthy bodies listed in new schedule 1 should not be disconnected, what is the position of all the premises that are not listed in the new schedule?
For example, what is the position of Government offices? Under the Bill, it is possible that the Treasury or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, at its splendid new building opposite Victoria station, will be disconnected if an obscure civil servant somewhere on some occasion fails to pay the bill. Is that not ludicrous?
Another example is barrack blocks. It is possible that soldiers in those blocks will be disconnected from a water supply because the Ministry of Defence has failed to pay


the bill. The Palace of Westminster is not exempt from disconnection. It is perfectly possible under the Bill that the Palace will be cut off and that the water that Ministers enjoy as they sit on the Treasury Bench will therefore not be available.

Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain to the House in what way hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster are a vulnerable group.

Mr. Gray: On reflection, one or two Members on the Liberal Benches might fall into that category. Those with minute majorities may well be looking vulnerable in two or three years' time. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are not vulnerable groups in proper terms. Nor, indeed, are many of the categories listed in the new schedule.
My point—perhaps I have chosen a vaguely absurd way in which to make it—is that Her Majesty's Government pay hospitals' water bills, as they do for schools and for most of the categories listed in the new schedule. The only circumstances in which the bill would not be paid would be either if the Government chose not to do so—if, for example, the school or hospital had become roofless or disused—or if, through some minor inefficiency in the lower regions of whatever Department, a civil servant on some occasion forgot to pay the bill. Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances, the water company would have the ultimate sanction of saying to the Government, "Look here, guys, you have not paid your bill; if you don't pay it we shall cut you off."
It is absurd that under the new schedule, many Government organisations may not be cut off even if they do not pay their bills, while other perfectly worthwhile Government organisations, such as the Palace and Government Departments, could be disconnected.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that civil servants pay the water bills of hospitals and other such premises. It is the employees of the health boards who do that. There are certainly health boards that I am acquainted with which make a mess of their financial affairs and might well come unstuck in this context.

Mr. Gray: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. He is right in saying that, technically, it is not civil servants who pay the bills, although they are public servants. Perhaps that would be the more accurate expression. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me with such care as to spot the slight slip. I am happy to acknowledge his correcting it.
These exceptions constitute an absurdity, as do the premises that are missing. The new schedule as a whole is not anything to do with real and important legislation; it is more to do with two other things. First, there is Labour's determination to limit, control and regulate every aspect of our lives. It is determined to write down in law the minutest detail of everyday life. When the Conservative Government introduced a voluntary code of conduct, we found that for many years, the water companies did not disconnect very many domestic customers. Far less have they disconnected any of the worthwhile bodies that are listed in the new schedule. A voluntary code of practice for the water companies has

worked perfectly adequately for many years, but the Government have now chosen to regulate through the new schedule.
The second aspect of new Labour highlighted by the new schedule is its love of the politically correct. It is marvellous for Ministers to say, "We care greatly for vulnerable people. That is why we will exempt them from disconnections. It is the fat cats in the water industry—those disgraceful people who are earning large sums of money—who have been cutting off schools and hospitals. We, the caring new Labour Government, are determined to stop that scandalous activity."
The truth is that no school and no hospital has ever been disconnected. No school and no hospital ever would be disconnected. A school or hospital would be disconnected only if it had failed to pay the bill.
There are two aspects of new Labour that the new schedule and the amendments highlight. One is its determination to regulate, down to the minute detail of our everyday lives. The second is its determination to be seen to be kind and fair to the most vulnerable in our society. Who would not be? It is a waste of Government time, legislative time and the House's time to legislate against something that by no stretch of the imagination would ever happen.

Mr. Meacher: I shall reply briefly, as there were two or three points on which I can give a factual response.
I was asked about the application of protection from disconnection in respect of student lodgings. Halls of residence attached to places of further and higher education will be protected, as will bedsits which qualify as houses in multiple occupation, and private dwellings where students rent rooms. That goes pretty wide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) raised the important point about limiting devices—trickle valves—to enforce payment. I am aware that a small minority of people regard those as useful for budgeting purposes. I do not think that the retention of limiting devices is the best way to help them, but I take my hon. Friend's point that there is a role for Government to consider whether we should issue guidelines to water companies about ways in which they can assist individuals and families who want help with budgeting.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) had enormous fun and made a fairly knockabout speech. He argued that the new schedule was entirely fatuous because none of the institutions listed is likely to suffer disconnection. He is not quite right about that. The figures that we have, which are not complete because the water companies do not always keep such information, show that, over the past five years, for houses in multiple occupation where the landlord is not resident, there have been 16 cases of disconnection, and, for tenanted properties where the landlord is responsible for paying the bill, there have been 17 cases of disconnection. Both types of property involve groups who are vulnerable, and both will be covered by the provisions.
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unconcerned in failing to recognise that there is a genuine purpose behind the provisions. I hope that we will not have a further


lengthy discussion of the matter, and that he will accept that such protection is desirable and that he should support it, not mock it.

Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman is right about houses in multiple occupation and the other worthy cause that he mentioned. My remarks were not directed at them. My point was about schools and hospitals in particular, which are the only two categories that he mentioned in Committee and that were originally mentioned in the Bill. Government agencies could reasonably be expected to pay the bills of both those categories.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 1, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert—
'(2) After Schedule 4 to the Water Industry Act 1991 there is inserted, as Schedule 4A, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991) to this Act.'—[Mr. Allen.]

Clause 2

PROHIBITION OF USE OF LIMITING DEVICES

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'excluded premises' and insert

'premises specified in Schedule 4A to this Act.'.

No. 34, in page 2, leave out lines 26 and 27.—[Mr. Allen.]

Clause 3

UNDERTAKERS TO CHARGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHARGES SCHEMES

Manuscript amendment made: in page 2, line 40, leave out 'section 61(7) above' and insert

'paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4A to this Ace.—[Mr. Allen.]

Clause 5

REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHARGES SCHEMES

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 3, leave out from end of line 19 to end of line 10 on page 4 and insert—
'143A.—(1) In making a charges scheme under section 143 above, a relevant undertaker shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the matters listed in subsection (2) below.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the following—

(a) the factors to be taken into account in relation to the fixing, calculating and imposing of charges;
(b) the making available to consumers of alternative bases of charging; and
(c) the taking into account of the problems faced by the aged, ill and disabled.
(3) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance given by him under subsection (2) above to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 3, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert—

'(a) prescribe in relation to any premises charged by reference to the volume of water supplied the classes of person for whom special provision is to be made by reference either to the financial circumstances of the consumer and the number of the consumer's dependent children or any person who has their home in such premises and who has a medical condition which requires the consumption of a volume of water in excess of a normal household level;'.

Mrs. Spelman: In Committee, more of the Government's thinking on the regulation of the water industry came to light. We were disquieted by the Government giving themselves enhanced powers. The force of the amendments is directed at what we see as a retrograde step in restoring more centralised control to a previously deregulated industry.
I stress that the amendments are in no way intended to lessen a proper degree of protection for vulnerable groups in society. The Government have said that special protection should be available for customers with a metered supply who, regrettably, suffer from certain medical conditions that require a high consumption of water—some of which are quite common, such as incontinence—and for large families on low incomes who, as any mother knows well, have a water consumption just short of that of a small Chinese laundry.
In an ideal world, the benefits system or the health service would be sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the essential needs of such people, but that seems unlikely at present. The Office of Water Services' national customer council believes that the majority of customers would not be opposed to a modest cross-subsidy within water companies' charging schemes to assist the most vulnerable groups of customers.
Amendment No. 29 merely restricts the Secretary of State's powers to those for whom special provision must be made in company's charges schemes. It represents simply a finesse of the Government's intentions, as a constructive Opposition might well be expected to produce.
However, amendment No. 26 reflects our serious concern about the enhancement of the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations as he or she sees fit. We take issue with the rather glib view that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), expressed in Committee that
The Government have a legitimate interest in a wide range of charging issues. It must, therefore, be correct for democratically elected politicians to be able to play a role in decision making on the distribution of charges where distribution can have important social and environmental implications.
Surely that depends a great deal on what playing a role means. Those enhanced powers are a potential area of conflict with the industry's regulator.
The avoidance of conflict would seem to be possible only if the power and influence of the regulator is diminished in relation to the influence of the state. In case the Minister thinks that I am reading too much into the clause, I quote his defence of the enhanced powers. He said that they were necessary
to avoid relying on Ofwat's economic regulation powers to achieve social and environmental aims."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 January 1999; c. 68.]


That, too, can be found in column 68 of Hansard.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Water Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed,That the amendment be made.

Mrs. Spelman: The Bill as drafted means that companies' charging schemes must comply with regulations set out by the Secretary of State. That represents a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. Essentially, it makes the Secretary of State the regulator. The United Kingdom model of utility regulation is based on the principle of regulatory independence and is pioneering in the utilities market. That ensures that a regulator's objectives and duties, as well as those of the regulated companies, are those explicitly given by Parliament through primary legislation.
The Government's position, as stated in the Bill, appears to be at variance with their conclusion to the first stage of their own review of utility regulation, which was concluded last autumn. They stated that regulators should continue to be independent while having "regard" to the guidance that Secretaries of State could issue on social and environmental matters. Ironically, our amendment better reflects the Government's conclusion than the Bill.
I digress slightly to pick up an important point that was made when we were debating an amendment tabled by the Welsh National party, which relates to the question of which Secretary of State we are discussing. We learned a new piece of information about the Secretary of State's role in regulating the industry when reference was made to prescribing regulations during our discussion of new clause 1. We learned, to the surprise of Conservative Members, that the Secretary of State in question was the Secretary of State for Wales.
That is a major constitutional point, and we did not get an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who asked whether that transfer of power would be governed by a concordat. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that the Minister's clarification was inaccurate in that this Bill post-dates the transfer of functions under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and is not covered by it. The Minister may wish to revisit that issue in his reply.
Clause 5, if unamended, would fly in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles and it represents a backward step in utility regulation. It will make companies' charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Such regulations will impose on companies and regulators objectives other than those determined by Parliament. That is yet another example of the Government taking back central control and showing their disregard for Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Not surprisingly, I begin by saying that the Government are against the amendments, which we believe would restrict the protection of vulnerable consumers provided by the Bill. We have made it clear that we intend to specify in regulations vulnerable groups of people with high essential water use that should—as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out—be given protection when they face the prospect of a measured water bill. We have also made clear which groups we intend to protect: large families with low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring high water use.
We have good reason not to agree with the amendments. Amendment No. 26 would replace the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under clause 5 with a power to give guidance to water companies on the contents of charges schemes. We do not believe that that would lead to a better system of regulation. Indeed, it would not be better for customers because we would not be able to assure vulnerable customers that they would be protected from hardship.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, we could give the water companies guidance about the sort of assistance that they should provide. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) warned, the companies would then decide how, and how far, to implement such guidance. That could well lead to a patchwork of different entitlements and systems of protection throughout the country. For instance, companies might choose to offer no assistance to those groups at all. Such an outcome would clearly not be acceptable. Nor do we believe that it would be better for the water companies. We have made it clear that we believe that, where the Government involve themselves in charging matters to achieve particular aims, they must operate as transparently as possible.
As drafted, clause 5 would provide the industry with a clear framework of essential requirements in which to work. The proposed amendment could lead to precisely the opposite, as companies seek to interpret the non-binding guidance and set out plans in the light of their interpretations. Therefore, the Government continue to believe strongly that the Secretary of State should have regulation-making powers in relation to charging schemes and we ask hon. Members not to press that amendment.
Amendment No. 29 would restrict the use that might be made of the Secretary of State's powers to assist vulnerable groups so that protection could be narrowly focused only on those groups and that situation, which the Government have already announced that we intend to protect. Household income, the number of dependent children and a medical condition requiring higher-than-average water use are crucial factors that identify those people who might be particularly vulnerable to a charge based on the volume of water used. The amendment would prevent any other target group being protected on other grounds. We would be unable to offer further protection to the elderly, the sick or the disabled if that turned out to be necessary. On the face of it, that is inconsistent with the raft of amendments tabled by the Opposition to protect a wide variety of groups from water disconnection.
Furthermore, it is unduly restrictive to say that the factors listed in the amendment are the only criteria on which it would be proper to identify those in need of help.
The regulations, on which we will consult fully with the regulator, companies, customer representatives and other interested groups, will provide for the details of the scheme to protect vulnerable customers. Clause 5(3)(a) provides the overall framework within which the regulations will be prepared. The framework must provide sufficient flexibility for Ministers to respond promptly if it appears that charging arrangements are causing severe hardship to new groups of consumers.
In contrast, the amendment would limit special provision to those people who are paying on a measured basis. That would prevent the Government from providing any protection if, for example, some future unmeasured basis of charging by the water companies turned out to cause severe hardship to some classes of consumer. Under present charging arrangements, for instance, we do not propose to provide protection to customers paying unmeasured bills, but, in that and other areas, it is important to provide flexibility to respond through regulation if hardship occurs.
However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I can offer some reassurance about the use of those powers to identify groups for special concessions. The Government are conscious of the fact that every concession enabling a vulnerable customer to pay a lower water charge than he or she would otherwise face can be funded only from the generality of charges paid by all other customers of that company. For that reason, we are determined not to adopt a scatter-gun approach to help for vulnerable groups. With a highly targeted approach, we can ensure that the impact of water charges can be softened to a worthwhile extent where it is most needed without imposing noticeable burdens on other water customers.
I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will agree that the amendment is unduly restrictive and withdraw it.

Mr. James Gray: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I think was her first outing at the Dispatch Box—the first of many, I am certain. It was disappointing that the Minister was unable to accord her a similar courtesy across the Floor. It appears that the Under-Secretary is better at reading from the bit of paper in front of him than he is at making a more informed or amusing speech.
I resent the Minister for the Environment implying that I was being flippant or having a knock about when I discussed the previous group of amendments. I was not. I was making serious points, albeit light-heartedly. One of the points that I made was that Labour is determined to ensure that every aspect of our lives is written down in the small print of legislation. The new schedule was unnecessary, and one could argue that clause 5 is equally unnecessary and interferes with our way of life.
Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers that currently he does not have. It says, "You, Mr. Secretary of State, are the clever guy. You're the one who will decide which vulnerable category will be exempt from metering. You will decide our futures—not Ofwat, not the water companies, but the Secretary of State." That is why we have tabled these two amendments.
The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to provide guidance to which the water companies must have regard. Under the Bill, companies charging schemes must comply with the regulations set out by the Secretary of State, which is a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. [Interruption.]
Hon. Members may say that I am reading my speech. That is quite right, but I hope that I am reading it with more passion, interest, authority and belief than the Under-Secretary. There is no question about it; there is a lot of passion in my speech.
At the moment, Ofwat is able to use its discretion and to decide what to do, and the water companies can also decide what to do. The clause dictates that the Government will lay down the categories of vulnerable people who will be exempt, and the water companies will be required to live up to that regulation. It makes the Secretary of State the regulator. Ian Byatt, the regulator, has gone to great lengths to say that he believes the clause fundamentally unbalances the entire UK utility regulation.
The UK model is based on the principle of regulatory independence. The whole notion behind utility regulation is that the regulators are independent. Their objectives and duties, as well as those of the companies, are given by Parliament through primary legislation. Parliament gives the regulator his rights; this clause takes rights back from the regulator not to Parliament, but to the Executive. It is a classic Henry VIII approach. The system of regulation that we set up in the original privatisation Bills is appreciated by all parties because it provides a balance between the Executive and the regulator.
Clause 5 flies in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles. It makes companies charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. That regulation imposes objectives on companies and regulators other than those determined by Parliament. It ignores the duties and the role explicitly given by Parliament to regulators. That is the first point I want to make about clause 5 in justification of our two amendments.
The second point is more meaty and concerns the vulnerable groups that clause 5 tries to protect. The Government are asking the water companies to provide a social service through differential tariffs. They are saying that these vulnerable groups will not pay, so there will be differential tariffs, which means that people who are not vulnerable will pay more. That is the clear implication of clause 5, and that is precisely why we are trying to amend it.
That is not to say that Conservative Members are being less than caring about those vulnerable groups. All we are saying is that the water pricing mechanism is not necessarily the way in which to help them. If the Government are searching for a way to help vulnerable groups, it may be useful to mention the notion of variations in income support. It is a curious fact that water bills vary hugely across England, largely because of the length of the pipework taking water into a person's home. In London, they are low: £180 in the Thames Water area. In the south-west, where distances are much greater, the bills are £300 or £400 depending on the state of the market. Irrespective of the difference in water bills across the regions, however, the income support element is exactly the same.
10.15 pm
If the Government are casting around to find useful ways in which to help vulnerable people, especially those who are least able to pay their water bills, let me repeat a suggestion that I made to the Secretary of State in Committee. He said then that he would consider it. May I suggest that the Secretary of State should have another look at regional variations in the water element of income support bills? That would be a real advance in helping those who are less able to pay their bills.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will my hon. Friend speculate for a moment on the principle that is at stake? It seems to me that the principle involves interference by the Government in a privatised company, and that the crucial aspect of that interference concerns the principle that is now being established. How far can that go? If we can interfere with the water companies, will there be interference in the future with other privatised companies in the fields of, for instance, energy or telecommunications? Will my hon. Friend speculate on that?

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendments; he must not deal with what is happening in other utilities.

Mr. Gray: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not be tempted to respond to what I consider to be an extremely valid point. On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say more about the way in which the Bill takes away the water companies freedom to act, and moves them increasingly towards a quasi-regulated, quasi-nationalised status and away from the privatised status that they currently enjoy.
Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It takes into the centre—into Westminster and into Whitehall—powers that are currently in the hands of the regulator and, through the regulator, in the hands of the privatised companies. The clause is centralising, regulatory and bossy, and our amendments are designed to lessen its effects.

Mr. David Ruffley: I support the amendment.
During our debates on the Bill there has been some measure of agreement on core principles, including the importance of a voluntarist approach to the spread of metering. Unfortunately, under clause 5 of the Bill we have no voluntarist consensus: the Government have eschewed the spirit of voluntarism and have introduced measures of compulsion for which there are no obvious justifications.
My support for the amendment is based on evidence provided by my regional water company, Anglian Water. It is at the forefront of innovative designs of tariffs for vulnerable groups. I think that that is accepted throughout the industry. I am thinking of two in particular. I shall not give details, but they cater for low-income large families, and take account of the fact that they should pay less than the normal meter charges. Pensioners are also able to receive discounts in exchange for not being subject to a standing charge. Innovation of that kind will be stymied

by the compulsion in the clause, particularly in the way in which power to design and innovate will be transferred from the private sector to the Secretary of State. Under the clause, the Secretary of State has the power to set regulations.
Many Conservative Members feel that this is an unwelcome move towards centralisation. In the free market world that we all seek to inhabit—even Labour Members seek to do so these days—is it not more sensible for private companies to design and innovate? A regulator or Secretary of State cannot possibly know or understand the particular customer profile or needs in a particular region. Are not private companies better placed to design products and particular tariff schemes to assist vulnerable groups? Is it not also true that the capacity of the 30-odd companies in the industry to promote innovative ideas must be greater than the capacity of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do so?
It is that drag on innovation, that eschewal—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order? Far too many conversations are going on in the Chamber. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is discussing the amendment.

Mr. Ruffley: The thrust of our argument is that innovation is better secured by the private sector. Conservative Members thought that we had persuaded the Labour party of that sector's disciplines, but it seems not when we consider the wording and effect of the clause, which is why we press the amendment.
There is the criticism that market failure may occur in the private sector. Perhaps water companies will not design innovative products to protect low-income families and vulnerable groups that we want to protect. What happens if bad water companies are not as innovative as Anglian Water? We do not have to look far to find the answer to that question.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if direction goes to the Secretary of State and he starts to get involved in that matter, a number of companies, particularly in my area, where innovation goes towards assisting disabled groups—people with certain disabilities—encouraging them with their bills and developing the public service, may give up getting involved in that and wait for him to direct, so innovation will go out of the window?

Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly, as usual. The pressure on the private sector to innovate will be sub-contracted upwards to the state. The private sector will feel little pressure to improve its performance, which is why we find the clause so disappointing.
I asked earlier, what happens to non-innovatory private sector water companies? It is an obvious and important question. The answer is surely to go down a voluntarist route, which is to say that performance grades should be publicly released and publicised—naming and shaming those private sector companies that are not as assiduous in assisting vulnerable groups with new innovative schemes. We do that in relation to sewer flooding and


customer complaints. Why cannot we do it in relation to new tariff designs? It is on that basis that I support the amendment.

Mr. Burns: As the hour is late, I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to make some points arising out of the Minister's comments.
I can assure the House that we will not press amendment No. 29 to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, in many senses it was a probing amendment. However, amendment No. 26 has far more serious implications. We made it plain during Second Reading and said vigorously in Committee that we had serious misgivings about the way in which the Government, through clause 5, seek to give the Secretary of State draconian powers to interfere and to regulate by order in a private company.
I should like to take the Minister back to the problem over which he and his colleagues seem to be completely knotted up and at sea. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), was equally at sea when talking about the provision in the amendment, which is reflected in the Bill, relating to the Secretary of State. Throughout our discussions on clause 5 in Committee, references to the Secretary of State by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment related to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales explained earlier today that all Secretaries of State are one and that the powers to transfer the contents of clause 5 and, in effect, amendment No. 26, would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly through the transfer of functions order. I seriously question whether he was correct in saying that. As he may have discovered by now, the transfer of functions order was laid before the House on 14 May 1998, seven months prior to the Bill being published. How, therefore, can the order be used to transfer functions from clause 5 of this Bill from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly?
More than a simple transfer is needed because that order has already been made. I stand willing to be corrected, but I do not believe that those powers are included in that order. It would have helped matters if hon. Members had been given the opportunity to debate the order, but, despite demands from Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, it was not debated. I dispute whether an order that was published months before the Bill could now be used to transfer to the Welsh Assembly powers under clause 5 and the amendment, if it were made.

Mr. Meale: It is correct that the clause post-dates the Government of Wales Act 1998, but the Government have made clear their intention to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales most of the Secretary of State's functions relating to water and flood defence. Those existing functions will be addressed in the first Order in Council under the Act. Schedule 2, paragraph 17, provides for new functions on water and flood defence to be treated consistently. The hon. Gentleman should consult clause 14 of the Bill.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the position. His point is interesting and I shall

read clause 14 and the other document that he mentioned. It would be unfair of me to ask the Minister any more questions because we want to make progress.
I find it staggering that despite the fact that the Bill is on Report, coming up to its Third Reading before it leaves this House to go to the other place, and despite the Committee proceedings, this is the first time that any mention has been made of the fact that the powers in clause 5 will be transferred, by whatever means, from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to the Welsh Assembly.
We had debates in which our speeches, which were not corrected, and those of Ministers were made on the basis that the powers in clause 5 would be used by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We had debates ad nauseam in which we said that those powers were too great to give to a Secretary of State and there should be guidance. At no time did Ministers point out that those powers did not relate only to that Secretary of State because all Secretaries of State are indivisible and are one, so the Secretary of State for Wales would have those powers and they would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That is new information at this late stage. I am surprised that it has never been mentioned before. I just wonder whether the fact that the powers will be transferred is new to Ministers, who became aware of it only in the earlier debate on Plaid Cymru's new clause 1.
We shall not make any further progress on the issue today, so I shall not press it. The other place will be able to try to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, the Opposition feel as strongly about the matters dealt with in amendment No. 26 as we did in the debate on Second Reading. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to oppose the Government and to support amendment No. 26.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 317.

Division No. 65]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
(Haltemprice)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan, Alan


Beresfond, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brady, Graham
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gray, James


(Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John


Clappison, James
Grieve, Dominic


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Gummer, Rt Hon John


(Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip


Collins, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Horam, John






Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hunter, Andrew
Ruffley, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Key, Robert
Spicer, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lidington, David
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tredinnick, David


(Fareham)
Trend, Michael


Loughton, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew


Luff, Peter
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Walter, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Mates, Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


May, Mrs Theresa
Whittingdale, John


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Norman, Archie
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Pickles, Eric
Woodward, Shaun


Prior, David
Yeo, Tim


Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Alexander, Douglas
Caton, Martin


Allan, Richard
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atkins, Charlotte
Clapham, Michael


Austin, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Norman



Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr Lynda


Barron, Kevin
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clwyd, Ann


Berry, Roger
Coaker, Vernon


Best, Harold
Coffey, Ms Ann


Betts, Clive
Cohen, Harry


Blackman, Liz
Coleman, Iain


Blears, Ms Hazel
Colman, Tony


Blizzard, Bob
Connarty, Michael


Borrow, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradshaw, Ben
Corston, Ms Jean


Brake, Tom
Cotter, Brian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Crausby, David


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Burden, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Burgon, Colin
Cummings, John


Caborn, Richard
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
(Copeland)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Canavan, Dennis
Dalyell, Tam





Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Keetch, Paul


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobbin, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Drew, David
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Efford, Clive
Laxton, Bob


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Ennis, Jeff
Levitt, Tom


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fearn, Ronnie
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livingstone, Ken


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gapes, Mike
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McIsaac, Shona


Godman, Dr Norman A
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Gorrie, Donald
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Heath, David (Somerton &
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Frome)
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hesford, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Moore, Michael


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
Norris, Dan


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Palmer, Dr Nick


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Ms Jenny
Pollard, Kerry


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen






Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prosser, Gwyn
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Stringer, Graham


Quinn, Lawrie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Radice, Giles
Stunell, Andrew


Rapson, Syd
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rendel, David
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooney, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Todd, Mark


Rowlands, Ted
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Roy, Frank
Touhig, Don


Ruane, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Ruddock, Joan
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Vaz, Keith


Sawford, Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Webb, Steve


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wicks, Malcolm


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Wood, Mike


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Worthington, Tony


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wray, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. David Hanson and 


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) implied that there had been no debate in Committee about the transfer of functions to the Welsh Assembly. That was a mistake. At column 109 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 14 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), outlined the whole debate. Unfortunately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I had anticipated that the Minister was seeking to correct his own remarks to the House. He cannot, on a point of order, seek to correct someone else's—that is a matter for debate.

Mr. Meale: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out for the sake of clarity that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for debate. I am sorry, but I misunderstood what the Minister was about.

Mr. Meale: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister should be, in the circumstances.

Clause 6

RIGHT OF CONSUMER TO ELECT FOR CHARGING BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME

Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 48, at end insert—
'(12) When under subsection (4) the Director upholds a water undertaker's refusal to give effect to a measured charges notice the consumer shall have the right to opt to pay as an alternative to the current charge either:—
(a) a charge assessed by the water undertaker by reference to the estimated volume of water supplied to the premises; or
(b) the water undertaker's average household charge
and any dispute between a water undertaker and a consumer as to the application of (a) above may be referred to the Director for determination under Section 30A above by either party to the dispute.'.
I reassure the House that this is a probing amendment. We are simple seekers after information, which the Minister will no doubt give us.
As any aficionado of the Bill will know, clause 6 adds new section 144A to the Water Industry Act 1991. It covers homes that currently pay for their water on an unmeasured basis under a charging scheme. It gives these consumers a new right to require their water company to charge them by reference to volume. Anyone who has been following the debate closely will know that, once the Bill becomes law, consumers who currently pay for their water on a rateable value basis will have the opportunity to have a water meter installed in most, although not all, cases. They will then have up to 12 months to decide whether they want to continue on a metered basis or revert to the rateable value basis. I suspect that many households will take that decision according to whether they like the size of their bills during those 12 months.
Clause 6 also provides that water companies should not have to install a water meter where it would not be "reasonably practicable" or where it would be unnecessarily expensive for them to do so. The vast majority of hon. Members will agree that the Government are right to include that perfectly reasonable qualification. It would place an onerous burden on water companies if there were a blanket requirement in the Bill for them to install a meter in every household that demanded one, even if it were technically feasible for them to do so.
The Bill makes no provision, however, for customers denied the opportunity to pay on an unmeasured basis—those required to continue to pay on a rateable value basis, which may involve their paying substantially more than if they were paying on a meter and thus paying only for the water that they consumed in a year.
The Minister looks a little puzzled, so let me elaborate. I understand that it is late and that he has had to work hard. There are a number of properties in multiple occupation—most comprising flats—which share a supply pipe. Also, the internal pipework of some of these properties is such that flats have individual cold water supplies but joint hot water systems. Older, purpose-built blocks of flats—in the local authority and private sectors—may have one supply pipe, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a water company to


install meters. Ironically, especially with local authority flats in that category, it is possible that residents will include owner-occupiers, elderly single pensioners or families with young children. Clearly, families will consume much more water than single pensioners.
The scale of the problem varies around the country, but it is widespread in the areas covered by Thames Water and Southern Water. The problem is likely to be greater in large cities such as London than in the south-west or more rural areas, where fewer blocks of flats are owned by local authorities. In such areas, the problem may be negligible.
A case highlighted on a recent Radio 4 consumer programme involved a Thames Water customer who lived in a flat, where his annual metered bill for both water and waste water services was £122. When he moved to another flat of similar size and value, which could not be metered, he ended up with a bill under the old rateable value system of just over £1,000. His water consumption and use of waste water did not rise beyond what he had averaged in his previous property, but, through no fault of his own, his water bill rose by more than £800 a year. I am sure that the Minister has some sympathy for that customer, whose problem no doubt is replicated elsewhere.
I am not asking the Minister for instant legislation, and I do not expect a solution tonight. However, by the end of this evening, the Bill will be only halfway through its progress through the House. I ask only that the Minister think about the problem to see whether a system can be devised that is fair to householders who are trapped in the way that I have described and who will not benefit from other provisions in the Bill. It is clear that the Government believe that the Bill will benefit consumers, and any system designed to overcome the problem that I have outlined must be fair to them and to the water companies. I hope that a realistic solution can be achieved.
I should like to help the Minister by giving him some information about the way in which companies voluntarily try to solve the problem. Their solutions are, by definition, ad hoc. As was noted in Committee, water companies have produced their own unique schemes to try to help people and families who are less well off by lessening the impact of their water and sewage bills.
I believe that I am right in saying that at least one of the water companies is prepared, if all residents agree, to meter an entire property, such as a block of flats that suffers from a problem, say, with a single-pipe supply, and split the bill equally. That may superficially appear attractive, and might, with some fine tuning and deeper thought, alleviate the problem. I see one flaw at the outset, however, concerning the metering of a block of eight flats, in which all families did not have similar backgrounds or consume similar amounts.
One could use extremes to illustrate the point, such as a single pensioner who lives in the same block as a young family with one or two young children. Such billing would be disproportionately unfair to that single pensioner. Would one be able to fine-tune a scheme further and reach some agreement with all residents, so that they paid proportions of the bill? Could estimate bills be issued?
To be frank, I do not know the answers to those questions. To be fair on Ministers, I would not expect them to come up with an instant answer. However,

would they be prepared to think more about it, and consult the regulator and the water companies to see whether there is any way in which that might be a feasible way forward?
Would it be possible to allow people who are caught in the traps that I have described to be charged on the basis of an average household bill? Again, I do not expect Ministers to be able to give an instant answer, although it is reasonable to ask them to think about the matter. They may want to consult the regulator and water companies, so that, voluntarily, the Bill's benefits are extended to people who, through no fault of the water companies or the Government in drafting the Bill, may not receive the benefits enjoyed by others who live in less difficult circumstances, such as a property where there is a clear-cut opportunity to install a meter.
Neither of those ideas is ideal; they may not even, on reflection, be workable. It is however certainly worth the effort of looking into the matter further in order to come up with some other scheme that might seek to benefit further the customers to whom I have referred.

Mr. Meale: I shall try to be as helpful as possible—certainly on some of the points on which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) required a response.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government want a water charging system that gives customers increased choice. For some people, that will mean opting to have a meter installed because they would prefer to pay a measured charge. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out, in some circumstances it would be impractical, difficult or very expensive to fit a meter, such as in a block of flats where residents share pipes. We do not believe that it makes sound economic sense to force water companies to spend a disproportionate sum of money on fitting a meter in such instances. However, at the same time, we are concerned to ensure that customers who find themselves in such circumstances are not disadvantaged.
At present, customers who would benefit from paying on a measured basis may request the installation of a meter, but if that is impractical, they may find that the water company is unwilling to change the basis of their charging from rateable value. In our consultative document, "Water Charging in England and Wales: A New Approach", we recognise that that could be a problem for customers, and propose that in such cases householders should be able to pay on an assessed charge. We therefore strongly support the principle of protecting customers' interests in such circumstances.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford rightly pointed out the rather strange case of Mr. Paul Slawson-Price, who moved from his flat in Kensington, where he paid a water bill of £122 a year, to one in Westminster, where the bill rose as high as £1,055.48. He rightly pointed out that the company—Thames Water—had existing powers to charge in the way that we would prefer, but that, although it had admitted that, it refused to do so.
11 pm
The protection that we require for residents can be delivered effectively through the mechanism—which we propose to introduce by clause 4—for the director general to approve companies' charges schemes. Moreover, by contrast with the arrangements detailed in the amendment,


the use of clause 4 would give water companies flexibility to consider arrangements for assessing charges that meet their customers' concerns.
I appreciate the offer that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford made when he suggested that the Government should be open to on-going ways in which we can try to help establish better systems for people caught in this way. We would also expect the regulator and the water companies to use that clause to enable satisfactory solutions to be found to the problem. We therefore believe that it would be unnecessarily prescriptive to set out procedures for calculating assessed charges on the face of the Bill. In the light of the assurances and help that I believe that I have given the hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister. May I seek clarification? At present, water bills are paid either according to a meter or on the basis of the rateable value system. Given those two systems of payment, would it be legal, at present or after the Bill becomes an Act, for a water company to start charging people for their water on a hybrid version of either scheme? What I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Meale.

Mr. Meale: As I tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, there are ways in which assessed charges can be introduced now. The water industry Acts enable that, and it is for the water companies to achieve that. In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the water company, Thames Water, chose not to do so. I believe that that effectively means that, yes, it could place its own charges that are found to be acceptable, and which, like all other charges, may be open to challenge by the customer to the director general. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assumption.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and his clarification of the role of the regulator in this area. I said that amendment No. 30 was very much a probing amendment. I believe that I have probed enough, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

RESTRICTION ON CHANGE IN BASIS OF CHARGING.

Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 6, line 33, at end insert—
'(5) Where a change in occupation of any premises occurs as a result of a change in ownership of those premises, a relevant undertaker may not begin to fix charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume in accordance with subsection 2(b) above unless the purchaser of the premises shall have been notified before the completion of the purchase of the undertaker's intention to begin charging by volume.'.
I suspect that, given the time, the Minister for the Environment will probably regret an almost throw-away line that he uttered in Committee, which has prompted us to table amendment No. 28. I shall be frank with the House. Until the Minister kindly pointed me in the right direction in Committee, I was unaware—it was total

ignorance on my part—that a provision in the Water Act 1989 currently allows water companies to determine, at the point when someone sells their house and moves to a house that is new to them but may not be a new house, whether to charge the individual or the household for water and sewerage on a rateable value basis, if that is the existing system, or to change the basis to a metered system of payment.
I understood from the Minister, in Committee, that that power is rarely used. I think that he said that it is used in about 1 or 2 per cent. of cases, if that. The figure was minuscule. It is a very underused power. However, the power is there. In future, there may be circumstances where water companies, for whatever reason, would like to use it to compel people, when they move house to their new home—it may not necessarily be a brand new home—to change the system of charging from rateable value to metering.
The majority of people who are buying a newly built house will understand that they will be charged for their water and sewage by meter. For those who place a high priority on water bills, that will be a factor that they will take into account when they decide whether they will make an offer on a new house and buy it. They will have that knowledge as they will know what council tax band the house is in. Like any wise purchaser of a property, before they take a decision on what is a substantial investment, they will have all the information and be able to assess to a reasonable degree of accuracy their household bills and outgoings during the course of a year. That will determine many things such as the size of their mortgage.
With the power that we are discussing, the problem is that there is no way in which someone who is moving to a home that is new to him or her will know whether a water company will exercise its right under the original Act and decide to change the basis of charging for water and sewage. I suspect that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, were entirely unaware that there is such a power in the original Act. That is because it is so little used. However, as I have said, that does not mean that it will always be so.
This could come as a rude shock, especially to a young family with two, three or four children, who are moving to a new house. They will have seen the particulars, including the rateable value. They have ascertained roughly what their council tax bill will be. They will have a rough idea, as a result of the old rateable value system, of what the water and sewage demand will be. They will then take a decision.
The power could come as a rude shock to them on two counts. Let us suppose that they move into the house and the local water company has decided that it will not charge for water and sewage on the rateable value that the family assumed when they bought the house. They suddenly discover that they will have a water meter. With young children, I suspect—this depends on the rateable value of the house—that they could end up paying significantly more for their water than they ever imagined in a month of Sundays.
That is unfair. It is not the fault of the new owners of the house that they have been caught in that situation. Of course, the water companies are legally entitled to exercise their rights under the original Act and take that


course of action. It will cause bitterness to those families who are so caught, and I think that basically it is unfair. I think that everyone would agree with the concept that when is someone is buying a house or making a substantial purchase, he should have as many facts as possible available to him before he reaches a decision so he can use that information as part of the formative process of taking a decision.

Mr. Steve McCabe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expresses, but I wonder why the amendment takes such a tortuous route. It requires water companies to notify potential purchasers before completion of the purchase. If the buyer decided to opt out at that stage, the exercise could be repeated ad infinitum. Why does not the hon. Gentleman accept the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Minister offered in Committee, when he said that he would consider requiring the water company to notify the householder before it levied the first charge? That would address the problem simply.

Mr. Burns: I know that the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House, but he is experienced enough to know that on Report, the House of Commons has the opportunity, as it does in Committee, to examine the Bill line by line and consider issues of importance to hon. Members and their constituents, and to ensure that the Bill is in the interests of those whom it is intended to serve.
We were not expecting to get on to the subject in Committee, and I can tell the Minister that it was rather by accident that we did so. Almost in a throw-away line, he unveiled the horror. I was totally unaware of it, I am not ashamed to admit. As the hon. Gentleman correctly reminds the House, the Minister said that he would consider the matter and return to it.
The right hon. Gentleman, very decently, said the same in response to our amendments to clause 1 with respect to other organisations and types of dwelling that should be included in the powers that apply to hospitals and schools, as we discussed earlier. I am grateful to him for keeping that pledge and drafting amendments for the House to consider tonight.
This is the last opportunity for us to discuss the Bill in the House, except for Lords amendments. The right hon. Gentleman will not be handling the Bill in the Lords, although obviously his Department will do so. As he did not table any amendments to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), I hoped that our amendment would remind the Minister of what he had said in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am following with interest what my hon. Friend says, as I was not a member of the Standing Committee and therefore come new to the argument. Does he agree that it might be a difficult process for a water company if it was opportunistically looking to change to metering on a change of ownership of premises, and therefore having to find out when a purchase was being made? That might drive a water company to the greatly preferable system of notifying owners of properties in advance that on a change of ownership of the property, the company proposed to

introduce metering. That would tend to be disclosed in the course of inquiries made by a purchaser's solicitors before exchange of contracts, not just before completion.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that cogent and sensible point. He has to some extent anticipated what I was about to say. I want to make it clear to Ministers and to the House that it is not the purpose of this probing amendment to introduce some massive, bureaucratic, interfering system with the power of the law behind it, to oblige water companies to notify estate agents or anyone else. That would be impractical and probably impossible to operate, however clever a parliamentary draftsman was.
11.15 pm
I repeat that briefly so that no misunderstanding can arise. I am not suggesting, nor would I want in a month of Sundays, some horrendously bureaucratic system backed up by law. This is a probing amendment and I shall not unveil a master plan to the House tonight. But I should like to see—the Minister has woken up, which is encouraging—a system which becomes part of the ethos of buying and selling houses.
Estate agents always draw up details of properties, which invariably include the appropriate council tax banding, ground rents where relevant, and so on. I should like to see some informal system whereby an estate agent, when approached by a householder to sell his house, can discover from a water company whether a property will continue to be charged on its rateable value, or whether the system will be changed once it is sold.
Obtaining such information will become part of the natural functions of estate agents when selling a house, and water companies will be expected in a reasonable but short period to supply the information, so that it can go on the house details. Prospective buyers will then know the exact situation.
The water industry may require some code of practice to ensure that, once a water company gives such an assurance, it cannot go back on it. A system which was not a burden on businesses and not onerous to estate agents could be worked out which would then become part of the ethos of house buying.
I shall not seek to divide the House on the amendment. I seek only to put forward an idea to remind the Minister of his comments in Committee; and to discover whether he has been able to come up with any ideas in the intervening time—whether such a scheme is not feasible, which would explain the absence before us tonight of a specific amendment, or whether he will use another place to come up with some idea.

Mr. Meacher: That was a fairly long-winded reminder. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on picking up a comment which I made in Committee—that a water undertaker has a right to impose a measured charge on a new owner-occupier. He has focused on a serious issue. I also pay credit to my hon. Friends, the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), both of whom pressed me on the matter in Committee. I am sympathetic to it.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that he did not want a bureaucratic solution which would be complicated and difficult. His amendment states:
a relevant undertaker may not begin to fix charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume in accordance with subsection 2(b) above unless the purchaser of the premises shall have been notified before the completion of the purchase of the undertaker's intention to begin charging by volume.
That will be quite a bureaucratic process.
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment. The Opposition cannot be expected to come up with a desirable process; they simply raise the issue.
I say again that we are in sympathy with the underlying purpose of the amendment, even though we do not believe that it—or any other provision made by the Bill—is a necessary or appropriate means of tackling the problem. I shall explain why. Clause 7 would enable a water undertaker to begin charging a new occupier on a measured basis. That is fair enough, provided that the new occupier has the opportunity to find out the water charging regime that he or she will face in that new property.
The real problem is one of information rather than powers. Rather than prohibit the undertaker from charging on the new basis, we need to tackle the information gap. That is part of the much wider issue of information for house buyers. We have issued a consultation paper on proposals for making the process of house buying and selling much easier. The consultation period finishes at the end of next month and it will provide another type of information, which we will consider before we introduce our proposals.
In our view, it would be premature to legislate now, in isolation, on the responsibility for a single piece of information available for home buyers. I assure the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that the Government will be discussing information for purchasers with interested parties, including the Law Society, water companies and local authorities.
I share the hon. Gentleman's wish that arrangements should exist to protect home buyers from having metering sprung on them—we are at one on that—but I hope that he will withdraw the amendment, as it is simply not the best way of ensuring that information is made available to home buyers. I assure him that we intend to identify and promote a better way. I hope that he will accept that.

Mr. Brake: I will not detain the House for more than a couple of minutes. [Interruption.] I have been issued a challenge.
I have some sympathy with the amendment, the need for which did not emerge by accident, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, but because the Liberal Democrats asked the Minister about that need in Committee. It is regrettable that the Government have done nothing to address creeping metering, which is one of the key concerns in the Bill that have been highlighted by a number of reputable organisations.
The amendment could slow that trend, but it is not the most effective way of achieving that. Surely the exchange date would be better than the completion date, if we wanted to go down that route, but the most effective way

of stopping creeping metering must be to give people genuine choice-to allow them to choose to have a meter and to choose to have it removed, at any point in the future. If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford had tabled such an amendment, we would have been happy to support it, but we could not support this amendment.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his comments. The amendment was clearly tabled to give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter and I certainly will not be pressing it to a vote.
Like the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, I was particularly puzzled by the latter-day claim by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that, once again, "It was all the Liberal Democrats' doing." It was not.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 10, line 36, after '1' insert

'and Schedule (Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991)'.—[Mr. Betts.]

New Schedule 1

SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE WATER INDUSTRY ACT 1991

SCHEDULE 4A

PREMISES THAT ARE NOT TO BE DISCONNECTED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHARGES

1.—(1) Any dwelling which is occupied by a person as his only or principal home.

(2) In this paragraph "dwelling" means—

(a) a private dwelling-house (which may be a building or part of a building),
(b) a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968), or
(c) a boat or similar structure designed or adapted for use as a place of permanent habitation.

2.—(1) Any house in multiple occupation which does not constitute a dwelling within the meaning of paragraph 1 above and in which any person has his only or principal home.

(2) In this paragraph "house in multiple occupation" has the meaning given by section 345(1) of the Housing Act 1985.

3.—(1) Accommodation for the elderly in which a person has his only or principal home.

(2) In this paragraph "accommodation for the elderly" means residential accommodation to which sub-paragraph (3) or (4) below applies, but which is not a dwelling within the meaning of paragraph 1 above or a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of paragraph 2 above.

(3) This sub-paragraph applies to residential accommodation—
(a) which is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by elderly persons,
(b) which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons aged 60 or more, and
(c) where the services of a warden are provided.

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to any building or part of a building designed or adapted for use as residential accommodation for elderly persons.

4. A hospital within the meaning of section 11 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

5. Premises used for the provision of medical services by a registered medical practitioner.

6. Premises used for the provision of dental services by a person who under the Dentists Act 1984 is permitted to practise dentistry.

7.—(1) Premises used for the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services under a pilot scheme.

(2) In this paragraph "personal medical services", "personal dental services" and "pilot scheme" have the same meaning as in Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997.

8.—(1) A residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home.

(2) In this paragraph—

"mental nursing home" means anything which is a mental nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984;
"nursing home" means anything which is a nursing home within the meaning of the Registered Homes Act 1984 or which would be but for section 21(3)(a) of that Act;
"residential care home" means—

(a) an establishment in respect of which registration is required under Part I of the Registered Homes Act 1984 or would be so required but for section 1(4) (small homes) or section 1(5)(j) of that Act (establishments managed or provided by government departments, etc.),
(b) a building or part of a building in which residential accommodation is provided under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

9.—(1) A children's home.

(2) In this paragraph "children's home" means—
(a) a community home within the meaning of section 53 of the Children Act 1989,
(b) a voluntary home within the meaning of section 60(3) of that Act,
(c) a children's home registered under Part VIII of that Act,
(d) a home providing (or usually providing or intended to provide) care and accommodation for three or fewer children at any one time, other than a home which is (or would, if it provided care and accommodation for more than three children at any one time, be) exempted from registration under Part VIII of that Act—
(i) by or under any of subsections (4), (5), (7) or (12) of section 63 of that Act, or
(ii) by regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section by the Secretary of State.

10. A school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996.

11.—(1) Premises used by an institution within the further education sector or an institution within the higher education sector for, or in connection with, the provision of education.

(2) In this paragraph the references to an institution within the further education sector or within the higher education sector are to be construed in accordance with section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

12. Premises used for the provision of day care for children by a person who is registered under section 71(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 in respect of the premises.

13.—(1) A prison or detention centre.

(2) In this paragraph "prison" means—
(a) any prison, young offender institution or remand centre which is under the general superintendence of, or is provided by, the Secretary of State under the Prison Act 1952, including a contracted out prison within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991,
(b) any secure training centre within the meaning of section 43(1)(d) of the Prison Act 1952,
(c) a naval, military or air force prison.

(3) In this paragraph "detention centre" means any premises which are used solely for detaining persons under the Immigration Act 1971 or the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, but which are not a part of a prison.

14. Premises occupied for the purposes of a police force.

15. Premises occupied for the purposes of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the Fire Services Act 1947.

16. Premises occupied for the purposes of the provision of an ambulance service by a National Health Service trust established under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990"…'—[Mr. Betts.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this stage, I will be extremely brief, which will reflect the will of the House. I simply want to say that this is a short, but an extremely important, Bill. It has three main aims for England and Wales. It will promote increased consumer choice, provide protection for vulnerable groups and prohibit disconnection of the water supply for certain groups. As I would be the first to recognise, it has been improved by deliberations in Committee, to which I carefully listened. On that basis, I strongly recommend it to the House.

Mr. Burns: No doubt, the House will be reassured to know that I will be equally brief. The Opposition did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We had serious misgivings about clauses 4 and 5, which we raised then and, at length, in Committee. As a result of the debate today, we still have serious misgivings about the increased powers of the Secretary of State and his powers to interfere in the whole process, but we will not change our position and oppose the Bill because, as the Minister for the Environment generously mentioned, it has been improved in a number of ways, where the Minister has been prepared to listen and make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Brake: I merely wish to say that we are happy for the Bill to make further progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Christians (Indian Sub-Continent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. David Winnick: Like all my colleagues, I am strenuously opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination, hence the way in which we have long campaigned—certainly in the Labour party—for tolerance, and non-discriminatory policies and practices for minorities of all kinds, including in Britain in the post-war years in particular, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.
I asked for this debate to outline the position for Christians on the Indian sub-continent and to ask the British Government to let the Indian and Pakistani authorities know of our deep and continuing concern about what has been happening there recently. In raising this matter, I recognise—as we all do—that India has maintained democracy while facing far greater social problems than we face in Britain.
However, more recently, some extremists in India have become more intolerant towards Christians. I shall describe a particularly brutal and murderous case. On 23 January, Graham Staines, a 55-year-old missionary, was murdered with his two sons, Philip, 10, and Timothy, 8, when their vehicle was torched. As they tried desperately to get out of the vehicle, the mob ensured that that was impossible—they were burnt alive. Mr. Staines had worked with leper patients for more than 30 years in India. Surely, no one can dispute the good work that he did for so many people in that time.
On Sunday, three days ago, two Christian teenagers—a girl and a boy—were murdered and another teenager seriously injured in an eastern state in India. Sadly, those are not isolated incidents. All the evidence points the finger at various extremist groups, some of which are connected with the ruling Bharatiya Janata party.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: Does my hon. Friend accept that India is a secular state, and that it respects all religions equally and allows everyone to worship equally in that spirit? That has been the case for hundreds of years, and that has been the spirit since independence.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, and that is why it is all the more sad that these incidents and tragedies have occurred. I accept what my hon. Friend said, and I am sure that he will agree that, against that background, it is unfortunate that such extremist actions have been taken. They are, in the main, carried out by extremist Hindus who do not represent the vast majority of people of their religion in that country.
Graham Staines's widow has accused an extremist group connected with the ruling party of being responsible for what happened to her husband and children. It is known by the initials RSS and is sometimes referred to as a national volunteer corps of the BJP.
I am referring to extremist elements; this is not a criticism of the Hindu religion. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a point of order today about extremist Christians. We should be concerned

about extremists anywhere, whatever their religion or even if they have no religion. In India, an extremist group believes that its role is to create an atmosphere of hatred against the Christian minority. That is why I am raising this matter.

Mr. Tony Colman: The debate is about the position across the Indian sub-continent. Will my hon. Friend join with me in condemning the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan? I am sure that the House universally condemns that action.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, indeed. I condemn all forms of persecution and intolerance. I shall refer briefly to Pakistan, because the subject of my debate is the Indian sub-continent.
The BJP is the ruling party in India. It is a nationalist, right-wing, Hindu-based party which came to power two years ago. Since that time, there have been attacks on churches, convents, schools and other properties belonging to the Christian community. In November last year, the RSS attacked a church in a village in south India. Members of the congregation were severely beaten up, and the pastor had to be taken to hospital. In September last year, four nuns belonging to the Foreign Missionary Sisters were gang raped by thugs in a state in central India. Those ugly incidents cause the deepest concern in the international community, and certainly in Britain.
There have been more than 100 reported incidents against Christians in India in the past two years. It is a matter of deep concern that a pogrom atmosphere has been building up against the Christian minority, particularly in the past two years. The position is serious enough without exacerbating it, but sometimes the authorities in India show indifference when dealing with the culprits.

Mr. John Randall: The hon. Gentleman said that he would refer to Pakistan, and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has mentioned the situation there. Does he agree that, whereas the problem in India is caused by extremists, when it comes to Pakistan, certain laws have been passed by the state that unfairly discriminate against minorities, particularly the Christian minority?

Mr. Winnick: Certainly I agree, and I shall refer to that later.
The brutal killing of Mr. Staines and his two sons prompted condemnation from senior Ministers in India. I understand that an inquiry is to be set up, and I welcome that.
Let me say, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who intervened earlier, that India has a good record—leaving aside the controversial and complex problem of Kashmir—of general tolerance of religious minorities. That was the record for many years—before Britain was involved in any way, during British rule and certainly during most of the post-independence period, owing to good work on the part of the Indian authorities, which has been recognised in this country.
Let me illustrate the way in which the position has changed. Between 1964 and 1996, 38 cases of violence—38 cases in 32 years—were reported against Christians in


India. Last year alone, 136 were reported. Some say that is the result of the BJP's winning the election two years ago. They say that the extremists—not necessarily Ministers in the Indian Government, but extremists who are affiliated to the BJP or support it in elections—feel that they have more freedom to demonstrate their intolerance, and to whip up hatred of the Christian minority, than they had before. Christians constitute about 2.5 per cent. of the Indian population.
Reference has been made to the position in Pakistan. I believe that the blasphemy laws in that country are often used purely for malicious and arbitrary reasons. Given such laws, it is not difficult for those who have a grudge against a neighbour or are in debt to deal with the grudge, or not pay the debt, by reporting the person concerned to the authorities under the blasphemy laws. I believe that, as with the position with Hindus in India, most Muslims in Pakistan oppose the practices that I have mentioned. It is unfortunate that those blasphemy laws in Pakistan can be used, and sometimes are used, to persecute the small Christian minority. I should add that Amnesty International has made clear its disquiet about the position in Pakistan.
It is not a question—I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends is surprised to hear this—of trying to take India's side against that of Pakistan, or of taking the side of Pakistan against that of India. It is simply a question of making it clear that we are totally opposed to discrimination and intolerance. We have been against that in our country, even at times when such opposition has not been very popular. Even when it might have lost us votes, we have made our position clear and have stood by our principles. If that is so in this country, we have a duty and a responsibility to defend minorities elsewhere, and we shall continue to do so, even if at times that causes some disquiet in the Indian high commission or the Pakistan high commission, or among others here who feel that we are attacking their native country. Be that as it may, we work on the basis of certain principles, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the Indian high commissioner. The commissioner has written to him stating that the Government condemn the attacks. What more can the Indian Government do?

Mr. Winnick: I shall ask the Minister to make it perfectly clear that the British Government are very concerned about the change in the position in India, which I have already explained, and want the Indian authorities to do all that they can, first, to bring the culprits to justice and, secondly, not to allow an atmosphere in which it is easy for some thugs to attack the Christian minority. That is more or less what we want in our country and have worked for, as my hon. Friend knows.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Another suggestion might be helpful and find acceptance with both the Indian authorities and those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have had trouble with several religious minorities, not just Christians. The Commonwealth might be able to facilitate some way to support Governments in upholding secular states and rights of minorities, as well as bilateral Government

relations. The Commonwealth could be helpful both to Her Majesty's Government and to the Governments of our friends in the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Winnick: I accept that point, but India and Pakistan are as independent as this country and, if they really have the will to do so, they can deal with the matters that cause us deep concern.
I reject the notion that, in raising the issue, I am anti-Indian or anti-Pakistani—nothing of the kind. The only thing I am anti in these matters is prejudice, whether that occurs here or abroad.
I understand that missionary work can sometimes cause offence. I accept that some extremist missionaries, usually—perhaps not surprisingly—from the United States, go about their business in a way that can cause disquiet and offence, but, often, the attacks and the atmosphere that are being created are directed against law-abiding people in India who happen to be Christians and who are seen as a soft target. I understand that the British Government have expressed some protest or concern. As I have said, I hope that they will continue to make known the matters that cause us concern, which I have been speaking about.
I want to keep my remarks brief, so I say simply that I do not believe that what I have said would have been disputed by the founding fathers of both India and Pakistan. They wanted to establish independent countries where, as has been mentioned, religious minorities would have the same rights as the religious majority. They wanted tolerance. To a large extent, in the post-independence period, that has been achieved, perhaps particularly in India. Therefore, in raising these issues, it is necessary for us to recognise that human rights are a cause for us in all countries.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, earlier today, there was a debate on human rights for women. We want human rights for all. We want people who belong to a religion to have rights and those who do not adhere to a religion to have the same rights. It causes me regret that I have had to raise the matter, but I was right to do so. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says in response.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on winning the ballot and securing the debate. His record on issues relating to human rights, freedoms of religious minorities and minorities generally compares with that of any hon. Member. We owe him a debt of gratitude for giving the House an opportunity to discuss a serious issue that, interestingly, has provoked several interventions, something that does not normally happen in an Adjournment debate at this time of night. It is a matter that causes concern here and, of course, in the Indian sub-continent.
We must deplore religious intolerance, whether it occurs in this country or anywhere else, but it is particularly disturbing that we are debating intolerance in the Indian sub-continent because Britain still has many ties with it. Hon. Members who are present tonight represent thousands of people whose ties with India and Pakistan are still intimate and will be for the indefinite future. Therefore, it is in a spirit not of criticism but of


genuine fellowship and concern that we express our sorrow at the reports of attacks on religious minorities in those countries.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said, India has been seen for many years as a model of a successful, religiously diverse and democratic state. It has won high standing throughout the world for the respect for, and even celebration of, religious diversity there. India is one of the great countries of the world and has more than 950 million people, so diversity is inherent in India's identity. Anybody who has travelled across even small parts of India knows that its diversity is enormous and one would normally expect to see such diversity spread across a continent, rather than in one country. The majority of the population are Hindu, but people of all faiths co-exist there, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists.
The concept of an Indian state in which all religions flourish was central to the thinking of the founders of modern India, including Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote:
Indian culture is neither Hindu, Islamic or any other, wholly. It is a fusion of all".
Those who grew up when I did certainly felt that the influence of Gandhi and Nehru, and their part in establishing that secular India—home to all its people—was an important statement to the whole world.
After independence, the right to freedom of religion was enshrined in India's constitution. Article 25 of the constitution states:
all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
That is one of the most unambiguous statements of commitment to religious freedom to be found in any country's legal system. It is therefore uncharacteristic for India to witness attacks on religious minorities such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has referred. It is all the more disturbing that so many incidents have been reported in the past few months.
My hon. Friend referred to several examples and I shall repeat some of them to demonstrate the gravity of the attacks. Last July, there were reports of the burning of bibles and attacks on staff at Christian schools in Gujarat. Muslims have also been targeted. We heard reports that, at the end of July, 350 Muslims fled from a village in Gujarat, fearing attack after two Hindu girls had eloped with Muslim boys. My hon. Friend referred to the reports of the gang rape of a group of nuns in Madhya Pradesh and the subsequent looting of the convent.
At the end of the year, we received reports that, on Christmas day, a rally was held in Gujarat to demonstrate against Christian conversions. My hon. Friend referred to the inflammatory climate and the speeches made against Christians, which led to vehicles being burnt and stones thrown, culminating in injury to three Christians. In another area of the same state, also on Christmas day, reports state that three churches were attacked and a Christian school set on fire, resulting in injuries to the principal. Attempts were made to destroy another school. We understand from press reports that, two days later, four more churches were attacked in the same state.
My hon. Friend referred to one of the most horrific events—the brutal murders of Graham Staines and his two sons. We know that those murders were committed by a

mob, apparently angered by missionary activity in the state of Orissa. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is bizarre that Mr. Staines had spent the bulk of his adult life working for the most marginalised people in Orissa, the victims of leprosy. I must simply record that we read of such attacks with dismay. For most of us, it is almost beyond belief that two young children were murdered as my hon. Friend described.
My hon. Friend referred also to reports being made as recently as this week of the murders of two Christian teenagers in another district of Orissa and an attack on another youth in the same incident.
The Indian United Christians Forum for Human Rights has claimed that the number of attacks against Christian institutions in 1998 was more than the total number between 1964 and 1997. The claim supports the statistics provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
We have to ask ourselves—not to minimise the situation, as we must not try to minimise such horrendous attacks—whether, in such disparate parts of the Indian sub-continent, there is a single root cause of the attacks. The statistics in a country of 950 million people might be brought into perspective if compared with our own statistics. I therefore tell the House that, although we must be forthright in condemnation, we must not stigmatise all of India because of attacks on Christians in some parts of it. It would not be fair or acceptable to do so.

Mr. Winnick: I am sure that the terrible attacks and tragedies that have occurred have been condemned by the overwhelming majority of Indians; I have not the slightest doubt about that. We are dealing with extremist groups which have been encouraged by the election of a very right-wing, nationalist, Hindu-based party that is known for its intolerance. We have to recognise that unfortunate fact.

Mr. Lloyd: I should make it clear that there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself in our view that India generally, and the Indian population generally, are not guilty of the crimes.
The attack on Graham Staines and his sons has caused anger and anguish in India itself. Significantly, condemnation by the press and major political parties has been unanimous. We should also establish the fact that protest has come first and foremost within India. As my hon. Friend said, the Government of India have responded with a clear denunciation of the attacks and an appeal for a return to India's traditional values of tolerance.
I should like publicly to welcome the forthright statement by the Indian president, President Narayanan, that condemned all attacks on religious minorities and called the murder of Graham Staines and his sons a "barbarous killing" and
a monumental aberration from the traditions of tolerance and humanity for which India is known".
I also commend to the House the address by the Indian Prime Minister on the anniversary of Gandhi's death, last month, in which he undertook to
protect all sections of the people, irrespective of their gender, caste and faith".
Those are important statements by the most senior figures in the Indian Government.

Mr. Stephen Pound: As my hon. Friend moves towards the end of his reply, he has been


concentrating on India. However, the subject of the Adjournment is the Indian sub-continent. Although I am sure that he was about to deal with other parts of the sub-continent, will he accept my assurance that, like many other hon. Members, I have a great many people from Pakistan in my constituency who have Christian families in Pakistan who are today—now—applying for asylum in the United Kingdom because of a real fear of persecution on solely religious grounds? There are at least 1.3 million Christians in Pakistan, possibly more. Like many other hon. Members, I am greatly concerned about the increase in the number of people applying for asylum. I am sure that my hon. Friend was planning to mention the issue, and I apologise for perhaps anticipating him.

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal in a moment with the situation in Pakistan.
Over several months, the Government have clearly stated our concerns to the Indian authorities. During his visit to India last November, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State expressed our concerns about attacks on religious minorities to the Indian Home Minister and urged that action be taken to restore the confidence of the Christian minority in India.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently raised the issue of the position of religious minorities in India with the national security adviser and principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister.
Furthermore, last year, the high commission raised our concerns with senior figures in the Bharatiya Janata party, including the general secretary and the vice-president. In the context of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, it is important that I should make that clear.
I am pleased to report that there has been some progress in the Indian authorities' response to the incidents. The human rights commission has been invited to investigate the murders of Graham Staines and his family. That is in addition to the formal commission of inquiry headed by the Indian Supreme Court Justice, which has been asked to report to the Indian Home Minister. We look forward to reading the findings of this and other inquiries. Suspects have already been arrested, and we very much hope that all the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
The incidents in Gujarat are being investigated by the National Commission for Minorities, and suspects have been taken into custody. I understand that arrests have

been made in the case of the rape of the nuns in Madhya Pradesh in September. We are encouraged by those developments, and by the determination of the Indian authorities to bear down against the perpetrators of this evil in Indian society.
The position of minorities, including Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims, in Pakistan is also a cause for concern. Like India, Pakistan's founding fathers were wholly committed to religious tolerance. The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said:
You may belong to any religion, caste or creed … There is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another".
Jinnah described himself as the
Protector General of the Hindu minority in Pakistan".
Article 20 of Pakistan's constitution makes it clear that there is a right to practise, profess and propagate religion, and that there should be the right to establish, maintain and manage religious institutions. There are constitutional protections, but the rights of minorities there are abused.
Many hon. Members will have read a disturbing article called "Beyond Belief' which detailed various examples of discrimination against Christians. Accusations of blasphemy can and have led to death sentences. In the most widely known case, Ayub Masih, a Pakistani Christian, was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death after intervening in a dispute with a Muslim man who wanted to seize land from his parents. Masih was shot and injured as he was being led to court. The Sharia Bill, currently before Pakistan's Senate, has given rise to further concerns over the position of non-Muslims in Pakistan.

Mr. Colman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I will not, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has completed a three-day visit to Pakistan. I can tell the House that, on Monday, he raised the issue of religious minorities with Pakistan's Minister of Law. He told the Minister of the great concern in the UK. The Minister made the point that there was concern in Pakistan as well.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Twelve midnight.